Los Angeles Times: Gun Policy Faces Major Bush Revamp

http://latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-000060830jul26.story?coll=la%2Dheadlines%2Dnation

THE NATION
Gun Policy Faces Major Bush Revamp
By ERIC LICHTBLAU
TIMES STAFF WRITER

July 26 2001

WASHINGTON -- With surprising speed, the Bush administration is moving to
reshape national gun policy in far-reaching ways that some opponents say could
undo years of increasingly restrictive laws governing the sale of firearms.

The administration's aggressive posture, stressing the 2nd Amendment rights of
gun owners, has invigorated the well-heeled National Rifle Assn. and thrown
gun-control supporters on the defensive.

Although liberals were talking just a few months ago about advancing new
gun-control measures, now many are grappling to defend existing weapon laws from
attack. The latest salvo came Wednesday with the release of a report from a gun
control group accusing Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft of distorting the judicial and
historical record on the 2nd Amendment to bolster his broad interpretation of
gun owners' rights.

Today, meanwhile, several prominent Democratic senators will introduce
legislation that would nullify the attorney general's efforts to severely
shorten the time the FBI can hold on to records on gun purchases.

Ashcroft--featured on the cover of the July issue of the NRA's monthly
newsmagazine as a "breath of fresh air to freedom-loving gun owners"--has become
the point man in the administration's efforts to fortify gun rights. But the
shift in policy extends beyond the Justice Department.

This week, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development scrapped a
$15-million Clinton administration program to buy back guns in and around public
housing projects. The buy-back program took about 20,000 guns off the streets in
the first year.

Earlier this month, the State Department angered many allies in the United
Nations by opposing a plan to restrict the international trafficking of small
arms and military-style weapons. The Bush administration, arguing that lawful
U.S. gun owners would be harmed, won that fight with the passage of a
watered-down U.N. plan.

"If you add up what this administration has done in rapid succession in the last
two months, it's very clear that they are beholden to the gun lobby," said
Brendan Daly, a spokesman for the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.
"Whatever the NRA wants, these guys are doing."

Administration officials say they are trying to better enforce gun laws in a way
that keeps weapons out of the hands of criminals, while at the same time
respecting the rights of law-abiding gun owners.

NRA officials say the organization supports what the administration has done so

far.

The Bush administration's recent defense of gun rights "is certainly consistent
with the beliefs and values that George W. Bush campaigned on," said NRA
spokesman James Ray Baker, adding that the "Chicken Littles" in the gun control
community are stirring up alarm and controversy because "their candidate didn't
win."

Aides to Ashcroft, a longtime NRA member, said he has not backed away from his
pledges during his confirmation hearings to uphold current laws without regard
to his personal views.

But Rep. John Conyers Jr. of Michigan, the ranking Democrat on the House
Judiciary Committee, said at a news conference Wednesday that Ashcroft's recent
actions have belied those pledges and shown him to be "a faithful friend of the
gun lobby."

"Now we have learned, when it comes to Ashcroft and guns, the fox is guarding
the henhouse," Conyers said.

Conyers' attack was timed to coincide with the release of a report by the
liberal Violence Policy Center that blasted Ashcroft's reading of the 2nd
Amendment.

Ashcroft declared in a May 17 letter to the NRA that he believes the
Constitution "unequivocally" protects the rights of individuals--not merely
militias--to keep and bear arms.

Gun control advocates said the declaration marked a drastic shift from about 60
years of legal precedent, and the Violence Policy Center, in its report
Wednesday, charged that Ashcroft's letter was based on "misleading and
inaccurate" legal rationale--misquoting Founding Fathers and former attorneys
general.

The most blatant problem, the pro-gun control group said, was Ashcroft's failure
to mention the standing opinion on the issue from the U.S. Supreme Court: a 1939
decision in United States vs. Miller that the Constitution guarantees militias,
not individuals, the right to bear arms.

"It's like reversing course on abortion without even mentioning Roe v. Wade,"
said Mathew Nosanchuk, litigation director for the Violence Police Center and a
former Justice Department official in the Clinton administration. "It's junk
science. Ashcroft is a flat-Earther in the world of legal scholarship on this
issue."

But Justice Department spokeswoman Mindy Tucker said that "among legal scholars
there are many different views on the 2nd Amendment." Ashcroft's position--that
individuals have the constitutionally protected right to bear arms--is solidly
grounded in the law and represents the view of the Justice Department, she said.

Just what effect Ashcroft's declaration will have on actual policy and case law
is unclear.

In a case now being heard on appeal in New Orleans, a district judge threw out
gun charges against a Texan who was arrested for violating federal law by owning
a weapon while his wife had a restraining order against him.

The Justice Department continues to oppose the judge's decision, defending the
government's power to determine who can own a gun.

Gun control advocates, however, argue that Ashcroft's view of the 2nd Amendment
appears at odds with the department's own position in the case. Ashcroft has
declined to comment on the case because it is pending before the courts.

The New Orleans case is being closely watched because, if it is upheld, it will
reverse the law on what restrictions on gun owners are considered
constitutional.

But gun control advocates maintain that if the Justice Department succeeds in
broadening the protection of the 2nd Amendment, putting an individual's right to
own a gun on par with freedom of religion or speech, it would threaten other gun
laws. Regulations requiring background checks on buyers, limiting the number of
monthly gun purchases or banning assault weapons could then be thrown out as
unconstitutional, some argue.

Matthew Bennett, a spokesman for Americans for Gun Safety in Washington, said
that, although the Bush administration's early record on guns has been
disappointing, gun control advocates remain hopeful that Congress will pass a
long-sought measure to ban the sale of weapons at gun shows without a background
check.

Bennett said he thinks Bush would sign the measure because "ultimately, he's
going to have to show that he's not a wholly owned subsidiary of the NRA."

But Nosanchuk said consideration of a relatively modest proposal such as a gun
show measure seems "somewhat beside the point when Rome is burning."

On Capitol Hill, Sens. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Edward M. Kennedy
(D-Mass.) will introduce a measure today that would ensure that the FBI can hold
on to records of gun purchases for at least 90 days to check for fraud and abuse
by gun sellers.

The bill is aimed at countering Ashcroft's announcement last month that he wants
to have the gun purchase records destroyed within 24 hours to protect the
privacy of gun owners.

Copyright 2001, Los Angeles Times

If the 5th Circuit upholds Emerson, the gun controllers are going to pee their pants.  And blame Ashcroft and Bush for it.

C'mon, gentlemen - render a decision!

Interesting, although typically slanted writing.  "Our heroes in the gun control movement are being beseiged by those neanderthal gun-owning special interests."  But who would expect less from the LA Times?

Beware any government stoolie who comes to tell you you *don't* have certain rights.

I hope that these laws are overturned. They are mostly unconstitutional. There would still be a question regarding Dealers. The Feds. could still require Dealers with FFLs to comply with more restrictive rules. Now, when the AW Ban sunsets I will add Tele. Stocks, Bayonet Lugs, Threaded Barrels, and Flash Supressors to every AR-15 that I will own in September 2004. Now as for the NFA. If and when it is overturned, I will convert all of my guns to select-fire. Why, because I can. Now, what will it take. Obviously a very pro-gun Supreme Court and a pro-gun administration/congress. Personally, I would like to have Charlton Heston as President since he would fight for all gun rights. We need a Republican-Controlled Congress to prevent new legislation from even coming to a vote. A Republican Chamber of Congress could kill new legislation. A Republican president could veto legislation. But, we need a Conservative Supreme Court to side with us.

[b]William H. Rhenquist (77): Dead-Set Conservative Probably with us.
John Paul Stevens (81): Dead-Set Liberal. Is definitely against us.
Sandra Day O'Conner (71): Conservative Swing-Voter. But, a woman. Probably against us at least on this issue.
[b]Antonin Scalia (65): Dead-Set Conservative. probably on our side.
Anthony Kennedy (65): Conservative Swing-Voter. Not sure how he'll rule.
David H. Souter (62): Breyer's Gay Lover. Probably Agaianst Guns.
Clarence Thomas (53): Conservative Black. Not Sure How he feels about guns.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg (68): Stone Cold Liberal Bitch. Definitely Against Guns.
Stephen G. Breyer (63): Souter's Gay Lover. Definitely Against Guns.[/b]

Now, we have 2/9 definites. We also have 3/9 maybes. We need 'em all. We have 4/9 Definitely Nots.

Now, John Paul Stevens is in his 80's. He'll kick soon and Bush'll replace him. Rhenquist has pondered retirement. Bush has said he plans on replacing Rhenquist with Ashcroft. I'm not kidding. Now, how would a court run by Ashcroft rule ?

This would shift the balance to 3/9 Definites, 3/9 Maybes, and 3/9 Definitely Nots.

As for the others, O'Conner and Ghinsburg are in their late 60's - 70's. Ghinsburg has no intention of leaving. O'Conner might Consider it. If Ghinsburg were to kick, we'd have yet another.

This would switch it to. 5/9 Definites, 2/9 Maybes, and 2/9 Definitely Nots. That is enough to win with no maybes.

You know, this is exactly the kind of article I'd expect to see in a Brady Group newsletter.  Bias in favor of the anti's, trying to raise awareness of the latest threats.  It's just like the articles in the NRA magazines, but 180 degrees opposed politically.  Just what you should see in an MMM newsletter

BUT THIS IS A NEWSPAPER!  Have they given up even attempting to look fair and unbiased?  

Rhenquist, Scalia and Thomas are big time conservatives, they'll go for almost anything we put on the table.  Kennedy and O'Conner are harder to predict, but are most likely with us.  Some issues are just so black and white its amazing that liberals can even try to debate them, and its even worse that they get an audience when they try.

Kharn

A few notes...

1. Scalia is a gun owner and a hunter.  He's also as strict construction as they come.  Most definitely on our side.

2. Thomas is also a strict constructionist - almost a Scalia-in-training.  I'd be damned surprised if he didn't come out for us.

3. Democrats have the senate.  No way Ashcroft would get through senate confirmation.  Unfortunately when that nincompoop from Vermont defected, he derailed any chance of getting a decent court nomination through until at least after the 2002 Congressional elections.

"The latest salvo came Wednesday with the release of a report from a gun
control group accusing Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft of distorting the judicial and
historical record on the 2nd Amendment to bolster his broad interpretation of
gun owners' rights."
================================================
What "interpretation"?  THEIR "interpretation" is more in line with an "interpretiation" than is Ashcroft's statement of fact.


================================================
"Gun control advocates said the declaration marked a drastic shift from about 60
years of legal precedent, and the Violence Policy Center, in its report
Wednesday, charged that Ashcroft's letter was based on 'misleading and
inaccurate' legal rationale--misquoting Founding Fathers and former attorneys
general."
================================================
Wait a damn minute...they actually BELIEVE their rationale IS correct?

And, as mentioned in the past, why is the 2nd the ONLY Amendment that applies to what basically amounts to the government as opposed to individuals, according to them?

It's spelled O'Connor BTW. If you ever need to do a web search.

This article is so full of half truths that it smacks of the old adage, "if you repeat a lie enough times, it becomes the truth." What Anti's used to quote as official Attorney General/Administration policy since the Nixon era has now suddenly grown to over 60 years?

And there are no, I repeat NO, Constitutional scholars worth their weight that believe that the 2nd Amendment is not an individual right. Even on the ultra-liberal anti gun MTV, various Constitutional scholars quoted on a gun control documentary unanimously recognized that the 2nd Amend is an individual right. The language in the 2nd is exactly the same as the 1st, 4th, 9th and 10th. "The Rights of the People"! The scholar explained that the only real or legitimate debate concerning the 2nd Amend lies within one word, "regulated". Depending on what dictionary you look at, this word could either mean "equiped" or "subject to regulation".

As for holding records of gun purchases, every knows that was a backhanded way of forcing gun registration without actually going through Congress. Illegal any way you cut it.

Gun de-regulation is a part of Bush's government de-regulation.  Warning and disclaimer....this article appeared in the NY Times.  [:)]

By STEPHEN LABATON
                             New York Times

                             WASHINGTON, May 22 ã Across an array of federal agencies, the Bush
                             administration has begun to make good on its commitment of broad
                             deregulation, promoting a policy transformation long sought by the business
                             community and opposed by consumer, labor and environmental organizations.

                             Well beyond the intersecting spheres of energy and the environment, where the
                             shifting policies have been apparent for months and crystallized last week in
                             the proposal for a relaxation of regulations to encourage energy development,
                             the scaffolding of a new regulatory framework is taking shape.

                             It would affect antitrust enforcement, telecommunications, workplace rules,
                             consumer protections, financial services and even how the military and other
                             agencies buy goods and services from the private sector.

                             For instance, Mary Sheila Gall, the official selected to head the Consumer
                             Product Safety Commission, has a decade-long track record at the agency of
                             voting against proposed safety rules because she has often said that injuries
                             are caused not by faulty product designs but by negligent consumers. Her
                             record has attracted widespread support from many manufacturers and strong
                             criticism from Consumers Union and other similar groups.

                             She has criticized the agency for promoting "a federal nanny state." Safety
                             experts and industry executives predict that after she takes over, a number
                             of proposals under consideration, like one requiring flame-resistant
                             treatment of upholstered furniture and another regulating baby bath seats,
                             will be dropped.
...

For some people here, that is simply not good enuf.

Until Bush and Ashcroft don camo, paint their faces in camo, join a militia group, wear a Rambo T-shirt, and take a dump on DiFi's desk, thay REFUSE to believe they are pro gun.

Come on guys - if tehy ain't agin us, they are fer us!!!!!!!!!!

Geo W. ain't gonna wear cammies, etc.  I believe that this the best it is going to get, and it probably won't get any better.  It could have been a lot worst, how many votes determined that Geo. W. was the winner in Florida? We "missed by that much."

You people have to get out more.

Scalia spoke in front of a group of law students a few years ago.  One of these was a regular rec.guns poster who is now in federal law enforcement.  He asked Scalia about 2nd Amendment issues;  Scalia's reply was decidedly negative.

Scalia is NOT on "our side".

As L. Neil Smith noted in [u]Pallas[/u], the judiciary is just another tentacle of the same octopus.

Rehnquist and Scalia are very probably pro-2nd. Rehnquist authored a piece of dicta in an earlier case that mentioned it would be odd if "the people" in the first, fifth, and tenth amendments was different from "the people" mentioned in the 2nd. Scalia, a textualist, had a very similar take on the issue in his book, "A Matter of Interpretation".

Thomas had some pro-2nd body language in his opinion on Brady. So there are probably at least 3/9 pro-2nd. That core would need to pick up a couple others, probably Kennedy and O'Connor.

The thing I would like for George W. to do is allow the government to sell its surplus ammo to the general population instead of having it destroyed like Clinton had done after he passed the excutive order. Thats our ammo we payed for it with our tax dollars. Think about it, if they would destroyed all the .30 caliber ammo back in the 50's and 60's would the CMP beable to sell it?

I am pretty sure about all my facts here. If there is anything that is not factual I will correct it.


Six

BTW, the VPC response to the Ashcroft letter is at [url]http://www.vpc.org/graphics/holes.pdf[/url].

It's a lame letter. Much of their analysis is contradicted by the texts they cite, as in the case of Federalist #46.

[img]http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20010724/capt.yugoslavia_kosovo_bush_xdm102.jpg[/img]
W's looking for some TP to wipe his bunghole, you cant see his Rambo shirt under the flak jacket.  Laura told him he couldnt paint his face, cause it will mess up the fine linen pillow cases in the WH.  His 3rd Texas Militia Membership card will be arriving in the next 4 to 6 weeks, as will his certificate for a free Thunder Ranch course, his AR15 is above the mantle at his ranch. [:D]

Kharn

I stand corrected.