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.

Well this sounds good, but your link doesn't work.

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.

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:


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]

Try this link: [url]www.nytimes.com/2002/05/07/politics/07CND-GUN.html[/url]

Trying to juice up the ol' post count, are ya Goed??

it's

ABOUT DAMN TIME!

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".

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.