Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 5/7/2002 11:50:41 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/7/2002 12:21:27 PM EDT by Goad]
Justice Dept. Reverses Policy on Meaning of Second Amendment By LINDA GREENHOUSE WASHINGTON, May 7 — The Justice Department, reversing decades of official government policy on the meaning of the Second Amendment, told the Supreme Court for the first time late Monday that the Constitution "broadly protects the rights of individuals" to own firearms. The position, expressed in a footnote in each of two briefs filed by Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson, incorporated the view that Attorney General John Ashcroft expressed a year ago in a letter to the National Rifle Association. Mr. Ashcroft said that in contrast to the view that the amendment protected only a collective right of the states to organize and maintain militias, he "unequivocally" believed that "the text and the original intent of the Second Amendment clearly protect the right of individuals to keep and bear firearms." [url]glocktalk.com/showthread.php?s=4c69a523138a3f378730c901e74ef4e1&threadid=78506[/url] This is from the widest read and most admired left-wing commie traitors in the USA. Who believes that the Democrats would have ever admitted we peasants have a right to keep and bear arms? Who believes that Gore would be collecting guns now if he had won? The link now is to a GlockTalk page. Center of page is NYTimes registration generator. Follow the instructions. Or you can register. I think you can use a fake email. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/07/politics/07CND-GUN.html Copy and paste after registering.
Link Posted: 5/7/2002 11:59:01 AM EDT
Well this sounds good, but your link doesn't work.
Link Posted: 5/7/2002 12:01:33 PM EDT
I'm glad to see the Bush Administration is going on record at the Supreme Court with their support for the individual citizen interpretation of the Second Amendment. All the talk, all the rhetoric, is meaningless until it's institutionalized. No matter what you say about GW Bush and Ashcroft, at least compliment them for turning opinion into policy.
Link Posted: 5/7/2002 12:01:50 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/7/2002 12:05:13 PM EDT by imposter]
Interesting article, espcially the blatant misreading by the NYT of the Emerson decision. The two cases involved were Emerson's appeal and a machinegun case. Here is the DOJ's footnote:
In its brief to the court of appeals, the government argued that the Second Amendment protects only such acts of firearm possession as are reasonably related to the preservation or efficiency of the militia. The current position of the United States, however, is that the Second Amendment more broadly protects the rights of individuals, including persons who are not members of any militia or engaged in active military service or training, to possess and bear their own firearms, subject to reasonable restrictions designed to prevent possession by unfit persons or to restrict the possession of types of firearms that are particularly suited to criminal misuse.
View Quote
The "particularly suited to criminal misuse" language is how Ashcroft will make sure the AW and MG bans stay in place. Thanks a lot Ashcroft.[V]
Link Posted: 5/7/2002 12:07:24 PM EDT
Try this link: [url]www.nytimes.com/2002/05/07/politics/07CND-GUN.html[/url]
Link Posted: 5/7/2002 12:12:44 PM EDT
Link Posted: 5/7/2002 12:18:40 PM EDT
Trying to juice up the ol' post count, are ya Goed??
Link Posted: 5/7/2002 12:23:13 PM EDT
it's ABOUT DAMN TIME!
Link Posted: 5/7/2002 12:27:27 PM EDT
To answer the question previously posed, yes I believe that the democrats would have continued the push to regulate firearms if it hadn't been such a polarizing issue that probably cost them the last presidential election. Several dems seem to be reversing their position in order to retain their "employment".
Link Posted: 5/7/2002 12:27:27 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Wolf_Nazi: Trying to juice up the ol' post count, are ya Goed??
View Quote
Sorry. I kept hitting quote and meant to hit edit. Was not working correctly. I don't post new topics often. It shows. The news item marks a sea change in the government's posture towards the Second Amendment. In spite of what some naysayers and pessimists insist this is nearly the best we could realistically hope for from Washington.
Top Top