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: 7/13/2001 7:48:47 AM EDT
The anti-gunners are howling mad. Woohoo! Checkout: "Ashcroft said the original intent of the Second Amendment "unequivocally protects the right of individuals to keep and bear firearms." " ================================================== Los Angeles Times: Justice Dept. Stands by Gun Stance http://latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/wire/sns-ap-ashcroft-guns0712jul12.story?coll=sns%2Dap%2Dpolitics%2Dheadlines Justice Dept. Stands by Gun Stance By KAREN GULLO Associated Press Writer July 12 2001 WASHINGTON -- Justice Department officials disputed charges that the department's position that the Constitution guarantees people the right to own guns undermines federal gun laws. The department will defend all federal gun laws, including those that prohibit some individuals from owning firearms because they have committed crimes, said the officials, speaking on condition of anonymity. They rejected claims by gun control groups that the new policy invites challenges to existing gun laws and will make it difficult to defend the laws in court. "This does not weaken the department's ability to defend gun control laws," said one official. Rather, it "demonstrates a marked difference in the way this administration is going to protect individual rights." The department's policy on gun rights was articulated in a letter Attorney General John Ashcroft sent to the National Rifle Association in May. Ashcroft said the original intent of the Second Amendment "unequivocally protects the right of individuals to keep and bear firearms." The statement reversed the position held by the Clinton administration, which argued that the Constitution provided a right for groups, not individuals, to own firearms. NRA executive director James Baker said the group may at some point challenge gun laws in court on grounds that they violate Second Amendment rights but there was no immediate plan to do so. He said the NRA supports laws that prohibit people who have committed crimes or are subject to restraining orders from owning guns. Baker said he met with Adam Ciongoli, counselor to the Attorney General, several months back and the two discussed a host of issues but not the department's position on the Second Amendment. Ciongoli declined to comment. Gun control groups say previous administrations and federal courts have long maintained that that the Second Amendment does not create or protect a right to own or possess guns absent a relationship with a state-sanctioned militia. The new policy "will be be welcomed by those in the gun lobby who advocate a constitutional right of civilians to possess military-style assault weapons, or to buy guns without background checks or other reasonable restraints," said Sarah Brady, Chair of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. Justice Department officials said just the opposite -- that previous Democratic and Republican administrations had taken the position that the Constitution gives individuals the right to own guns. Copyright 2001 Associated Press
Link Posted: 7/13/2001 8:08:03 AM EDT
Originally Posted By warlord: The new policy "will be be welcomed by those in the gun lobby who advocate a constitutional right of civilians to possess military-style assault weapons, or to buy guns without background checks or other reasonable restraints," said Sarah Brady, Chair of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.
View Quote
I don't know why Sarah is concerned about "military style asssault weapons" - don't recall her husband was shot with one of those. "without background checks" - WHAT? last time I purchases a firearm they did a background check on me. She's full of SH*T. Or maybe her idea of a background check includes a picture of my pecker? I think any nucklehead who can read and understand plain English, can figure out what the Second Amendment says.. Shara is [whacky]
Link Posted: 7/13/2001 9:55:10 AM EDT
Finally, gun owners get some good news... about time!
Link Posted: 7/13/2001 10:05:43 AM EDT
Sara's good at blowing smoke (lung cancer), and now she's blowing smoke up your @ss with this BS statement:
Gun control groups say previous administrations and federal courts have long maintained that that the Second Amendment does not create or protect a right to own or possess guns absent a relationship with a state-sanctioned militia.
Link Posted: 7/13/2001 10:23:02 AM EDT
Once again, the major electronic media outlets are ignoring this. I checked MSNBC, CBS, CNN, and Foxnews and none of them had anything about this on their websites. Maybe if I had done a search I might have found something- but since none of the sheeple are likely to search for it. If they arent being told what to think by reporters they dont get involved. No headlines= no problem. Why this sudden conversion by the media, to suddenly ignore non-PC activities by the government?
Link Posted: 7/13/2001 10:37:33 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Chaingun: Sara's good at blowing smoke (lung cancer), and now she's blowing smoke up your @ss with this BS statement:
Gun control groups say previous administrations and federal courts have long maintained that that the Second Amendment does not create or protect a right to own or possess guns absent a relationship with a state-sanctioned militia.
View Quote
No, she's right about that. Since about 1973 that HAS been the position of the Department of Justice of EVERY administration. In fact, it was stated verbally by assistant Attorney William Mateja before the 5th Circuit in the appeal of Emerson, and it was stated in writing immediately afterward by then Solicitor General Seth Waxman. The majority of legal precedent, mostly based on the U.S. v. Miller decision, agrees with that position. Now that the DoJ has reversed that position, and now that the Second has been upheld by the Emerson decision, and now that it's under appeal in the 5th Circuit, perhaps we'll get our own "Brown v. Board of Education" decision that will overturn the last 70 years of bad legal precedent. I can only hope.
Link Posted: 7/13/2001 10:49:21 AM EDT
This has been such a good week for gun owners its getting scary. I am starting to get nervous about the "other shoe" falling, you know?
Link Posted: 7/13/2001 10:58:02 AM EDT
Armd - I too looked for this information on all the sites you mentioned and found nothing. I finally found the report buried deep on the ABC News web site. That wonderful American media, they use thought control any way they can, be it biased reporting or no reporting at all.
Link Posted: 7/13/2001 11:04:50 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/13/2001 11:01:54 AM EDT by ArmdLbrl]
Agreed Fox, But what is with this sudden declaration of neutrality by them? Without the TV networks help the Bradys would never have come as far as they did. Their staying out of it helps us, not as much as if they joined us, but it does help to not have to fight against them. What is the deal?
Link Posted: 7/13/2001 11:44:34 AM EDT
I am not yet sure why their apparent "neutrality". However, judging by the lack of coverage the media did not want this decision to receive wide spread attention among the populace as you previously noted. I found nothing in the Seattle Times or P.I., nor was there anything in my local paper. So far, this knowledge appears to be largely restricted to gun advocates and control proponents, both of which are actively concerned about the issue. Right now I am in a "stay tuned" mode. I have zero trust in the media and figure there is something waiting to be played out here. While I balk at using the word collusion, it sure struck me as odd that there was so little coverage of the announcement. Here is a wild thought though. The democrats, and by definition, the media, want to see a clear democratic victory next year in congress. Since democratic leaders have been vociferous in their complaints about how the gun control issue hurt them badly in the south and many midwestern states, could it be that a hands off approach is the best media policy to help democrats in the next election?
Link Posted: 7/13/2001 11:54:39 AM EDT
Originally Posted By KBaker: Now that the DoJ has reversed that position, and now that the Second has been upheld by the Emerson decision, and now that it's under appeal in the 5th Circuit, perhaps we'll get our own "Brown v. Board of Education" decision that will overturn the last 70 years of bad legal precedent. I can only hope.
View Quote
and if they slam it down VIVA LA REVOLUTION i hope it doenst come to that thu. cuz it would be hell
Link Posted: 7/13/2001 12:05:32 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Fox: I am not yet sure why their apparent "neutrality". However, judging by the lack of coverage the media did not want this decision to receive wide spread attention among the populace as you previously noted. I found nothing in the Seattle Times or P.I., nor was there anything in my local paper. So far, this knowledge appears to be largely restricted to gun advocates and control proponents, both of which are actively concerned about the issue. Right now I am in a "stay tuned" mode. I have zero trust in the media and figure there is something waiting to be played out here. While I balk at using the word collusion, it sure struck me as odd that there was so little coverage of the announcement. Here is a wild thought though. The democrats, and by definition, the media, want to see a clear democratic victory next year in congress. Since democratic leaders have been vociferous in their complaints about how the gun control issue hurt them badly in the south and many midwestern states, could it be that a hands off approach is the best media policy to help democrats in the next election?
View Quote
Well that is still sort of good for us. If the Dems learn to stay away from gun control, at the very least there wont be any new gun control laws. And we would still have avenues open in the courts. Not as good as supporting the individual right to keep and bear arms, but better than what we had under Clinton/Gore
Link Posted: 7/13/2001 8:59:40 PM EDT
If anyone wants to check the link, do so before 12am PST, it will disappear after that. Chalk up one for pro-gun people.
Link Posted: 7/13/2001 9:02:53 PM EDT
Damn, their making it hard for honest guys like me to make your lives miserable. [smoke]
Top Top