Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Log In

A valid email is required.
Password is required.
Site Notices
6/21/2017 8:25:40 PM
Posted: 7/11/2001 6:32:36 PM EDT
Ashcroft said the Second Amendment did not prohibit Congress from enacting laws restricting firearms ownership for ``compelling state interests.'' How can this possibly be. The right protected by the Second have never been in question. The receiver of the right(people or state) has been the question (for *them*). Now Ashcroft seems to be doing the Constitution and the RKBA movement a favor. But, To me he is diluting the Constitution. This statement of his is akin to saying, yes the 1st does protect your right to free speech. However, you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater. NOW PLEASE PUT ON THIS GAG. david
Link Posted: 7/11/2001 7:39:31 PM EDT
See the other thread about Ashcroft. "Compelling government interest" is the most stringent standard of review there is under constitutional law. "Compelling government interest" might keep Charles Manson from having the right to own a firearm, but it won't do much else. This is a good thing.
Top Top