No other way around the issue? How about the way that the 2nd makes sure we have.

[50] [frag] [grenade][heavy][pistol][pyro][shotgun][sniper][uzi]
[50] [frag] [grenade][heavy][pistol][pyro][shotgun][sniper][uzi]
[50] [frag] [grenade][heavy][pistol][pyro][shotgun][sniper][uzi]

[50] [frag] [grenade][heavy][pistol][pyro][shotgun][sniper][uzi]

[50] [frag] [grenade][heavy][pistol][pyro][shotgun][sniper][uzi]

[50] [frag] [grenade][heavy][pistol][pyro][shotgun][sniper][uzi]

[50] [frag] [grenade][heavy][pistol][pyro][shotgun][sniper][uzi]

[50] [frag] [grenade][heavy][pistol][pyro][shotgun][sniper][uzi]

I am so tired of this crap from anti-gunners!  I have made it a point over the last few years to ask cops if they have confiscated AR15 type rifles from any violent criminal or seen one used in a crime.  To a man, they have all said no.

Just to make this clear, when one sues the US Federal government, the Justice department is required to represent the defendant. Judge Ascroft not on his lawyers being there, but on their actions once there.

Well, one thing's for sure: everyone at the government table will be wearing a bra. [rolleyes]

This unfortunately is no surprise for me at all,

Reagan Screwed us with the "Gun Owner protection act" that prevented the further production of class three weapons for civilian use.

Bush, Sr.  Decided that all firearms entering the US had to be for sporting purposes (89).

And I don't think I have to mention what the Commie Bastard Klinton did to us.

The Republicans try to cater to us during elections, than screw us at the first opportunity. The NRA which always tries to do the right thing has become weak and inefficient. They have lost the great enemy in Klinton and in doing so have lost there focus. Instead of trying to fight campaign finance reform they should be putting pressure on little Georgy Jr. Not to screw us like his dear old dad did. Remember the NRA stated that we would have a friend in the White House with "W".
With friends like this, who needs enemies?



JerrY

Hey man Im not kidding,I'll go with you,this has been on my mind a hell of alot for a few years now!

I'll hold back on my predictions, but I have to agree that Ashcroft has to at least look like he is doing his job regardless of his opinions. Right now, I see it like this; if you had to choose a guy to play one on one with, would you rather have a fresh young guy that is reserved and sly or the goofy old man that will scream, drop his dentures and trip on his sneakers while trying to steal the ball?

I'm afraid that the Republicans are moving to far to the left.  By supporting the AWB they piss off 200,000 AR15.com types and pick up 2 million soccer moms.

 This may sound crazy, But Why doesn't the NRA or some other group bring charges of treason against Ashcroft or any other elected official that is now or has ever voted for, supported, or defended in court any law that is unconstitutional. They did after all take a pledge to up hold the constitution. And when they don't is that not treason?

Ah it doesn't matter. The end is so close I can smell the burning flesh. Keep buying your guns, soon we will all get to use them.

Yeah, he screwed us by relegalizing gun shows, making it ok to sell your personal guns without constantly worrying that some ATF flunky might consider it dealing, making it legal to travel through an Ati-Gun state en route to a Pro-Gun state w/o being arrested, etc...Overall FOPA was a good bill. Unfortunately, w/o a line iotem veto like they gave Clinton Regaen could either veto a bill overturning large portions of the GCA of 1968, or sign it and accept a ban on new MGs, which weren't as popular as they are now. OH, BTW we can still make Clas 3 on a FOrm 1. It is just MGs that are banned.



Wrong again...LBJ signed that law in 1968. ATF simply reinterpreted it in 1989 to mean what they wanted.



Can't disagree with that one. He gave us the Brady Law, Latenburg, the AW Ban, a Ban on Chineese Guns, a ban on All Hi-Cap. Imports, etc...ad nauseum...



He was the lesser of two evils. Would you REALLY rather have AL Gore in office. Could you imaging Janet Reno handling 9-11. Can you say Martial Law ??? At least Ashcroft only suspended the rights of Non-Citizens...Then again, he still suspended constitution rights.

No, it isn't. Treason is levying war against the United States (Johnny Jyhad Walker), adhering to its enemies (Bill Clinton, Jane Fonda), or giving aid and comfort to its enemies.

What Ashcroft did was violate his oath of office to defend the constitution...

Treason: a crime that undermines the offender's government.
Not defending the constitution is a crime in his case since he took an oath to do so.

Ok I found the constitutional definition of treason and the punishments for it. To prove treason you would have to prove the conspiracy against the American people existed.

We should all be proud of John Ashcroft. He is bravely just doing his job, just like Janet Reno did hers.

I didn't know that there was an epidemic of bayonetings! I didn't know that the criminals were hiding in buildings firing and people, and that the cops couldn't find them because the flash of the shot was hidden!! (Guess they were DEAF!) I didn't know that gangs were busting into homes using collapsable stocks and pistol grips for easy firing!!
All of Metzebaum's arguments are unfounded Even the DOJ says that assualt weapons are RARELY used in crimes.
That law is unconstitutional. It violates the 2nd, 9th, 10th Amdendments.




As the nation's "top cop" his first job is to enfore and defend the CONSTITUTION! Any laws that are not passed in pursuance of it are null and void, and are unenforcable.



You mean the oath that requires him to defend and uphold the CONSTITUTION?!?

Ashcroft's got to do his job on this one.  It is not his job to decide whether laws are constitutional or not, that job belongs to the courts.  If he refuses to defend the government on this one on the basis that he believes the law to be unconstitutional, then he himself is undermining the constitution, because he is attempting to remove the court's from the process.  Come on guys, if Ashcroft refused to take this case, the Democraps would scream for his resignation and the next guy Bush tried to get confirmed for AG would have to be a bleeding heart liberal to make it past confirmation hearings.  

As NYPatriot and DarkHelmet have stated earlier, I think Ashcroft is trying to position himself to take as little heat as possible while remaining loyal to his beliefs and the NRA.  If he uses Metzenbaums arguments for a case and loses, then the only people the libs have to blame are themselves, because it is their language and their arguments.  THat way he won't take as nuch heat "for being in the back pocket of the NRA."  He already takes a lot of heat for that.  The less heat he gets, the better for us, because he won't be as pressured to appear "objective" or "balanced."

To win this war, we have to use the same tactic that the libs have used for so many years to great effect.  Their tactics have been to chip away at our freedoms a little at a time instead of going for a full blown ban.  Nobody would support a full blown ban outright, but if they chip away a little bit at a time, a full blown ban will creep up on the American public without anybody realizing.  Right now, I don't think the political climate and the American public's attitudes towards guns is such that a full blown repeal of the machine gun ban would happen, but if we can continue to relcaim our freedoms incrementally, I think we can gradually change the public's attitude until most people will be comfortable to have the machine gun ban of FOPA repealed.  If we push for immediate repeal of all gun laws, no matter how right we are, we will be quickly dismissed because the American public is too uncomfortable with that idea right now.

No it doesn't. It is each and every member of the government duty to ensure that what they are doing is Constitutional. If they believe what they are doing is unconstitutional, then they must stop it. Many early Presidents have vetoed legislature because they thought it was unconstitutional.
Ashcroft to an oath to uphold the Constitution, and that implies not doing anything unconstitutional, and stopping unconstitutional acts.

Wrong. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the courts are the place for deciding what is and isn't Constitutional.


Let them scream. He is under no duty to resign. They could not impeach him because the Republicans have control of the house. And even if they did, they would not be able to must 2/3s of the senate to convict him.

I thought his oath of office said he was supposed to "Support, protect, and defend the constitution of the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic?"

To me this includes FIGHTING AGAINST unconstitutional laws, NOT defending them!  Keep in mind, your definition will ALSO have Ashcroft defending Campaign Finance "Reform."

I'm not worried about any bans, just waiting for a terrorist,whacko to be stopped by a gun owner,then for 50 yrs there will not be any talk about banning guns.

It does say that.  It also says that he has to support and defend all the laws of the United States.  It's not up to him to decide if they are constitutional, that's for the courts.  So until the courts rule them unconstitutional, he is obligated to defend them.  It's called the seperation of power.  Congress passes, the AG carries them out, and the Courts rule if they are Constitutional.

well here is the answer to the 2004 sunset.  I hae a bad feeling that there are going to be many of us turn into criminals with the strock of a pen.  Sad Sad news indeed.  Just from the article I can tell this one will not die but ratheronly grow bigger teeth esp. since these laws will only make society safer and drug dealers less likely to use these type of weapons in their daliy deals.

Iso

Stand proud and know that you will have one of those "when I was young..." stories to tell your grandkids...just like the old man in "Sundown at Coffin Rock".

[url]www.hevanet.com/kort/SUNDOWN1.HTM[/url]

The democraps just found out that the AWB can be hard on Politicians. Hope they get the point. If not then tyranical gov't will have to defend their choices during future elections. I don't think the people want to be disarmed. Nor do they want to defend their counrty with their life, at their own expense, with a four round bolt action.

Write your congressperson.

Hey, wait a minute!  Were you guys who were saying that the NRA didn't care about the AW ban just pulling my leg?

Yeah, isn't it funny that some people on this board think that the NRA cares only for the "hunting rifle/shotgun" types.

Maybe they should stop bitching and get on board with an organization that actually has a chance to affect national gun policy instead of just pissing and moaning about it.

As someone who used to live right near Switzerland in SW Germany, and has visited Switzerland a fair number of times and know some Swiss people and some foreigners who have lived there, it's  nice place to visit, but, unless you are a VERY RICH foreigner, you really wouldn't be welcomed.

Switzerland never really had any national gun laws (except differing canton laws on storage, purchase, etc.) until foreign drug dealers started shooting each other on the streets of Basel, Bern and Geneva. Now there is a form of national CCW application process that one has to go through in order to carry. I don't think it's normally extended to foreigners, but I could be wrong on that one.

The Swiss have traditionally had a very strong sense of national consciousness, which tends to be excluding of outsiders- that's just how they are, and they like it that way (Sorta like New Hampshire vs. Flatlanders [:D]..).

"Ashcroft Takes on NRA in Assault-Weap. Case"


if thisd is true, i am physically ill..

So this was six months ago, what happened?? NRA guys? What happened???

So, where has this gone?

To everyone complaining about what Ashcroft is doing in this case, you have to realize that he HAS to do it, it's his job. He doesn't get to pick and choose which laws to prosecute, he has to do all of them, even those he doesn't agree with..

Hopefully he loses though... :P

None of you have asked the most important question: What is the makup of the Ohio Court of Appeals (or whatever court this is)?  Are there conservative judges or anyone who can understand the true implications and wrongheadedness of the '94 ban and judge on it fairly?  Does this case have a chance in hell?  Will anyone listen to a rational argument--for example, Metzenbaum was completely wrong when he stated that they went after "the guns that most often appeared in crimes"--a proven falsehood.

It's probably better that it's a free speech case because that stands a better chance of getting heard than a 2nd Amendment case.  Why?  Because our nation's judicial system is in shambles, that's why!  It barely functions at all.  Activist judges are everywhere, men who have been conditioned to think they are the law and that they cannot be questioned nor ever fail in their holy righteous duty to the state.  What do you expect when everyone kisses your ass?  Power corrupts mightily.  At least some liberal might do a double take if they heard "free speech" the holy grail of their system of (un)limited government.

If you consider statism as a religion, you will understand the judges are devout servants of the Holy Empire of America.  It's not about logic or reason, its about faith and loyalty.  They know full well what the 2nd Amendment means, it's just that they have all agreed that they must protect one another, the cops, the pols, etc.  And they think the way to do that is to deny mere civilians their full rights wherever possible, [b]especially[/b] when it comes to firearms.  A little freedom is a very dangerous thing for those whose unjust and unethical practices might find them staring down the barrel of a gun wielded by a truly pissed off citizen.  

I really don't care where Ashcroft falls into this equation.  He is just another true believer.  He is forced to uphold the laws and fight for them (bizarre, actually--fighting for unjust laws instead of for the people hurt by the unjust laws).  In this case, I don't think there is much of a conflict in his mind as he believes guns are for hunting ducks and deer.  AR-type rifles are dangerous weapons preferred by gangsters and thugs. Obviously true, because look at which ones our very own government uses.  Duh!  

I hope I am wrong, but how much exposure could Aschroft possibly have to highpower shooting, 3-gun matches, or any other discipline where semi-autos are used responsibly?  All he has ever seen are guns used irresponsibly by a tiny few.  Not that this is even relevant, but if they live by some "sporting purposes" illusion, then let's be sure to have some sports to prove these guns have a place in their framework of a just society.  Meanwhile, the unorganized militia lives on.

Ashcroft could have sent some pro-gun lawyer to "defend" the case so it would be guaranteed to lose but instead he chose to appoint a Gun Control Hall of Fame inductee. How many of you are actually old enough to remember how rabidly anti-gun Metzembaum was?

Just remember:

1. Ashcroft sent filings to the Supreme Court asking them NOT to hear Emerson or Haney, both of which were 2nd Amendment Cases.

2. Ashcroft said in those letters "[b][The 2nd Amendment is] subject to reasonable restrictions [/b] designed to prevent possession by unfit persons or [b]to restrict the possession of types of firearms that are particularly suited to criminal misuse.[/b]"

It doesn't surprise me at all that there are so many rationalizing his actions under the "I vas jest follovink orters!" Nuremberg defense. You all are so wrapped up in political party fanaticism that you don't care if your guns are taken away, just as long as the republicans are doing it.

You guys need to lighten up on Ashcroft.

It's his [b]JOB[/b] (as he told Congress when Feinstein was trying to deep-fry him) [b]to argue FOR every federal law[/b], weather he agrees with the law or not! He promised to 'enforce the law as written' in front of that committee, and he's doing it.

He has to make a convincing case (in order to do his job as AG right), and because he's not exactly Mr Gun Control, he's referencing someone who is (as unlike Emmerson, there's no way around it here, besides rolling over and playing dead). If he was a gun-grabbing-kook, he wouldn't have taken the position of 'The 2nd is an individual right' in Emmerson.

It's like the common European political system, where the 'loyal opposition' takes the opposite position of their political opponents, just because their job is to oppose.



That aside, it would be nice to see someone use the SC decision that says 'weapons suitable for military use are the only ones protected by the 2nd' to get the AWB or the 86 MG ban overturned.

But first, we need people like Ashcroft on the bench... Oh well, the GOP is back, so we may get that...

P.S.

It has never been shown that Reno HAD any principles to abandon...

You can't sell someone down the river if if you're allready there...

Sheesh...we're not stoopid, Imbroglio. If we're going to donate our guns, we're going to make damn sure it's to the political party that says it's okay for us to keep them.

cynic

Now if he was a Democrat that would be a different story. I'd expect him to twist laws 'til he broke them. I'd be scared $#!+less!
Finnbear out
[edited because I can't type worth $#!+]

You can Continue to Be Willfully Ignorant, Or
See the Truth.

Join The [b]NRA, SEND MONEY, LOTS of MONEY NOW![/b]

Or Be Willfully Wishing Ignorant.
^
[size=1]^
[url]www.Cures-not-wars.org/[/url] Truth Will Liberate Earth.
[url]www.RKBA.org/antis/hci-master[/url]Allege 1993 feinstein/hci master plan
PRETEXT for TOTAL Gun Freedom Confiscation Dis-Armament.
[url]http://www.DigitalAngel.net/[/url]Revelation 13:18  ID-GPS-MONEY Human Implant Micro-chip

Never Again, Never Forget
Seek the Truth , Liberate Your Mind
We Are At WAR
[/size=1]
FIXED BAYONETS

VX

Actually, the executive can decline to defend a law which it does not agree with.  A court then appoints an attorney to defend the law.

This happened, for example, when Congress passed a law which attempted to overturn Miranda.  The Clinton administration declined to defend the law and an outside attorney (a law professor) was appointed to defend the United States.

Aschcroft and Bush have put their support for the AW Ban on the record.  The only reason they would support us is political expediency.

Our hope for not reenacting the AW ban lies in Congress, especially in the relevant committees.

Pardon me, but I was under the impression that his job, FIRST AND FOREMOST, is to protect and defend, and argue FOR the CONSTITUTION!!! Not for any old law. The Constitution is above laws, and any law contrary is null and void, REGARDLESS of Supreme Court rulings, and regardless of promises to Senators. Or does that oath he took mean nothing?