U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft will go against the National Rifle Association (NRA) in the government's fight against assault weapons, the Cleveland Plain Dealer reported April 20.

The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Ohio has begun hearing arguments over whether an assault-weapons ban under the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 violates the U.S. Constitution.

Ashcroft, a life member of the NRA, has enlisted retired Sen. Howard Metzenbaum (D-Cleveland), a lifelong enemy of the gun lobby and a chief sponsor of the ban, to assist him with the government's case. Ashcroft's assistants have been referencing Metzenbaum's Senate record for legal arguments aimed at maintaining a federal law that restricts access to the guns.

"The outcome of this case will significantly affect the future safety of the public and law-enforcement officers," said Richard Rosen, a Washington lawyer who represents the groups supporting the ban.

When the ban was being debated in the U.S. Congress, Metzenbaum argued that such action was needed because the military features on some semiautomatic rifles made them a threat to society and especially valuable to drug dealers and violent gangs.

Cont...

                                     

It's Ashcroft-Metzenbaum vs. NRA

04/20/02
Bill Sloat
Plain Dealer Reporter

Cincinnati

- A blistering battle over gun control, set for a showdown in a federal courtroom in Ohio next week, has created one of the oddest alliances in American history.
From Our Advertisers

The Justice Department of U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft, a life member of the National Rifle Association, has quietly enlisted a lifelong enemy of the gun lobby, retired Sen. Howard Metzenbaum, in the government's fight against assault weapons. So quietly, in fact, that Metzenbaum didn't even know about it.

"Wow! Never in a million years would I expect this to happen," Metzenbaum, 84, said when he learned that Ashcroft's assistants had pored over his Senate record to buttress legal arguments for a brief aimed at preserving a federal law that restricts access to the guns.

"I guess this goes to prove the old adage: If you live long enough, you might see anything."

Metzenbaum, who retired eight years ago, is an unabashed liberal Democrat from Cleveland. While in office, he was detested by Republican conservatives in Ohio and across the nation.

Ashcroft got his position in the Bush administration by being one of the nation's most visible conservatives - the anti-Metzenbaum.

But through twists they never could have imagined, the ideological foes have wound up on the same side in a landmark case that could alter the national gun-control debate. Their opponent in the lawsuit is Ashcroft's ally, the NRA.

On Tuesday, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will hear arguments over whether an assault-weapons ban imposed by the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 violates the Constitution.

"The outcome of this case will significantly affect the future safety of the public and law-enforcement officers," says Richard Rosen, a Washington lawyer who represents the 14 outside groups, including 10 national law-enforcement agencies, that are supporting the ban.

Metzenbaum was one of the chief sponsors of the ban, which concluded that the net effect of military features on some semiautomatic rifles made them a menace to society and made them especially useful to drug dealers and violent gangs.

He argued that assault rifles with combat hardware were not needed by hunters and sportsmen. Foes have argued ever since that some assault rifles are still on the market, while others nearly identical are banned. They say the law has created an irrational situation.

But the Justice Department says the ban should stand. And as attorney general, Ashcroft has to enforce and defend existing laws, even those that he might disagree with.

Ashcroft fashioned his political career opposing virtually all gun-control legislation, including the ban on the sale of assault weapons. Two years ago, when Ashcroft ran for re-election to the Senate and lost, the NRA spent more than $300,000 on his behalf in Missouri.

Jim Warner, an NRA lawyer representing two gun manufacturers and two gun dealers in the Cincinnati lawsuit, said he, too, was surprised to find Metzenbaum's denunciations of guns sprinkled through the government's court filings.

"I guess they have to go every possible source to give themselves cover. If you don't have the law on your side, you have to go with what you've got," Warner said. Justice Department lawyers could not be reached for comment.

Cont...

Unlike most gun-control cases, the one headed to court Tuesday is not focused on the Second Amendment, which contains the clause granting Americans the right to bear arms. Instead, the dispute involves the First Amendment, with the manufacturers saying Congress trampled free speech by enacting a list of names of guns that could not be sold in the United States.

"So if the law protects some and bans others, we say there is no rational basis for that," Warner said. "If you control what a manufacturer names a product, that infringes on free speech."

The Justice Department argues that was not the intent of Congress. It says the guns listed by name were those that were traced most frequently to criminals.

Metzenbaum's Senate remarks were quoted to back that up. In one speech, he pointed out that an imported gun banned during Ronald Reagan's administration popped up under a new name when it was built in America.

"After [ATF] banned the importation of a South African riot-control shotgun called the Striker 12 in 1986, American manufacturers subsequently marketed a copy, which they renamed the Street Sweeper, boasting that it was barred from importation," Metzenbaum said.

The former senator isn't involved in the current battle, but there's no doubt where his sentiments lie. "I don't know that I agree with the NRA at all on anything," he said. "I have no reservations about the constitutionality of trying to limit access to guns."

And the NRA has not ONE WORD to say about Ashcroft?

As long as you're a deer hunter with a 1/2 stocked bolt-action rifle, or a cowboy action shooter, Mr Ashcroft and the Bush Admin. will fight for you.

If you're a black rifle guy or gal, you're f*cked.

What are we to make of this situation folks???

Is the explanation...

1) Ashcroft is a duplicitous scumbag who is all to ready to sell our freedoms down the river?
                         Or
2) Ashcroft is as sly as a fox, and has appointed an 84-year-old Metzenbaum to present the Gov.’s case, because he knows that Metzenbaum may be slipping mentally because of his age?
In short, he is setting Metzenbaum and the gun grabbers up to take a fall, all the while giving the appearance of an Attorney General who is doing his job.

I think NYpatriot is being naive or kind in his second scenario. I also suspect that more than a few folks here think Dubya and the Republicans will joyously let the AW ban sunset. Dream on.

It appears that Ashcroft is a duck-hunting son of a bitch.

Thanks to this clown, the Federal government will probably follow in California's footsteps and ban firearms based upon their features rather than by name (pistol grips, detachable magazines, etc).

Holy crap; how I misjudged this guy.

I'm not an Ashcroft fan, but I must say it just seems like the man is just doing his job, like it or not.  His job is to enforce and defend current laws, even ones he doesn't agree with (which is exactly what he said he would do to the Senate hearings for his confirmation).

This is not a suprise in any way.

I will go with Dark Helmets call on this. They may loose, they may win.



 And that bit of Drivel is Patently False.
But the Soccor Moms and Anti-Gunners will suck it down like a Anti-Venom.

How the fuck could Ashcroft ally himself with this POS ? Then again, Metzenbaum has a big mouth that he can't seem to keep shut. So, he may well hurt the Anti-Gunners.

Unfortunately, as I said before Ashcroft is not our friend. He sponsored a bill when he was in the Senate to make it illegal for a parent to let their kids even touch an "Assault Weapon" if they weren't looking right at them at all times. For example, Uncle takes kid to range. Kid shoots Uncle's TEC-9. Uncle is arrested on Federal Charges since parents didn't give proper written permission to use that gun. One thing that I remember well was the first time my Uncle handed me his Pre-Ban (This was in 1992, so it really wasn't Pre-Ban at that time) and showed me how to operate it. Ashcroft tried to ban that very thing.

Another dishonest politician.  Once he's bought, he doesn't stay bought.  What happened to the good old days when we had honest crooks in office?z

i told ya so........and for those defending ashcrap.....which part of "shall not be infringed" is he defending?

[b]GGGGGGGGRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


THAT'S FUCKING IT!!!!!

I'M MOVING TO SWITZERLAND!!!!!!!!!


[:(!]

Yeah, I do sincerely hope you live long enough to see(get...) what is coming.[IMG]http://www.theunholytrinity.org/cracks_smileys/contrib/ed/bluboomteamenforcer.gif[/IMG]

Color me not the least bit surprised by this.  We were granted a gift of time to get what you need between now and 2004.  The AW ban WILL sunset at that time...To be replaced by something MUCH more restrictive!

Get what you need NOW!  Time is getting shorter by the day!

 [img]http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/smilie/sadness.gif[/img]

And while you're at it, why don't you take Rob Reiner, Alec Baldwin and Barbara Striesand with you.  Didn't they also make promises like that if the 2000 election didn't go their way?

Geez, what a bunch of whiners.  

Let's see how this shakes out and THEN take action if it's needed.  I for one think Ashcroft has a little more up his sleeve than meets the eye.  If he refused to take the case, then he'd be labeled as "in the pocket of the NRA" by the ANTI's.

Why are so many of you such "Chicken Littles?"

You moron, I meant I'd move there because you are basically REQUIRED to own and know how to operate you military issue firearm.

I wouldn't move there because of those retards.

I say wait this one out folks!

Ashcroft didn't wake up this morning and decide that the Second Amendment protects duck hunting only.

[b]There's more than one way to skin a cat![/b]

But that's [u]another[/u] thread...

Eric The('IToldYouSo'InAdvance)Hun[>]:)]

Personally, I think Ashcroft is just doing his job. He has to. I would expect an honest person to do so. Do I think he will fight vigorously against us? No.

Therein is your answer. Relax...just a little bit.

Look at it from this point of view.  They are going to decide this issue at a point in history where Gun Owners are winning victories every day. The nation is going CCW. Manufacturers are not Liable. The 2nd Amendment has more support now, at least at that level, then it has seen in about 14 years.  This is significant.

The belief that Aschroft knows this will fail in the courts and is just "setting up" the antis is just that - a belief.

We've already seen this Administration is willing to sign legislation that it knows is clearly unconstitutional (CFR).

What makes you think this Administration won't also DEFEND laws that it knows are unconstitutional?




The "Countdown to Confiscation" clock just moved five minutes closer to midnight.

as a "local" i have great interest in this. unfortunately, i side with those that are calling ashcroft a fascist politician.

he has all kinds of guys holding full auto weapons just to keep his butt safe.

i don't.

as was stated up above...which part of "shall not be infringed" is he working FOR???

and metzenjerk? i've followed this worthless sock-o-shit's escapades for way too many years.

this is typical of the fascist crap coming out of his paternalistc mind: "I have no reservations about the constitutionality of trying to limit access to guns."

communists and banana republic dictators wouldn't be doing a much better better job of "gun control" than these boys.

in the meantime...be carefull as you cross i90 thru clevetown! it's a city inhabited by a high percentage of democrats and losers. oops...i was redundant!

"And as attorney general, Ashcroft has to enforce and defend existing laws, even those that he might disagree with."

If this statement is true, and this is his charter, what would any man of good character do?  He would enforce and defend existing laws, even those that he might disagree with.

Janet Reno threw away her principles.  I don't believe Ashcroft has yet.  

I think it's odd that they are arguing this as a 1st amendment case though.  Any thoughts as to how this approach will have an effect?

Perhaps...

I am not willing to "bet the farm" on the actions of politicians.

Honorable Eric, if I am wrong, I will happily send you some of this plastic pipe I am burying in the ground.

[img]http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/smilie/biggrin2.gif[/img]

Options:

1. Bitch and moan in an internet forum, or

2. Write Mr. Ashcroft a firm, polite passionate, Constitutionally-based letter reminding him of his responsibility.


Gee......which do YOU think has a snowballs chance in Hades of getting his attention???

Sorry to interrupt your bitching with a moment of rational thought....please proceed.

[rolleyes]

Before you start calling people morons, you might want to explore the laws of Switzerland.  They require [b]CITIZENS[/b] to know how to operate and have military issue firearms.  However, they don't just hand out citizenships to anyone who wants one.  I have a friend who lives their now with his Swedish wife.

Furthermore, if you run then you are a coward.  Who is left to fight for what's right if all the good guys run away to a foreign country?

God Bless Texas

1st amendment case? because they don't want "shall not be infringed" in court.
G-man---I don't think it will help to write letters when the paper tiger(NRA) is going to lick his hand and we all know the NRA speaks for us all....

Am I the only one that remembers US vs Miller?  I think just based on the SCOTUS' ruling in Miller, we could defeat the AW ban.  

I hope Ashcroft is playing the sly part... secretly undermining the govt's case.

But IIRC, he said he supported the 2nd as protecting an individual right, but supported restrictions on assault weapons.

I hope we kick the crap out of the Govt on this case... maybe even get the AW ban repealed on Constitutional grounds!

Fuck everybody.
I just had to say that.

Feel better now, Schnookums?  I wuv you too!  Kissy kissy, hug hug!

Love's a wonderful thing, eh?

After reading this post I just became a Garandman fan. He hit the nail on the head.We had better try to communicate with the Republicans because we don't have any friends in the Democrats.

"Keep your friends close....and your enemies even closer"


I doubt it though. Break out the KY guys, its gonna hurt.



lib

Over the years, we have grown accustomed to the "any new news is bad news" mantra. It seemed that anything that had to do with the 2nd Amend. was negative in its scope.

Lately, much of the news has been good. It will be interesting to see where this "news" falls.

this should be an eye opener for those of us that belive the ban will be allowed to sunset without replacement

Can someone explain to this ignorant person why it is that the NRA won't take a case to court on 2nd amendment grounds? Do they think it is too big of a chance for a total loss? Or are they a bunch of sell out closet banners who only want duck guns and single shot muzzle loading deer rifles?  Do they have an official position on this, or do they just clam up when asked?

The case is NRA v. Magaw. Oral argument was on April 23.



This is the second time the case has been appealed.  The first time was on standing/ripeness issues.  Here is the opinion: [url]http://www.law.emory.edu/6circuit/nov97/97a0345p.06.html[/url]

We lost a similar case in the D.C. Circuit:  Navegar, Inc. v. United States, 192 F.3d 1050 (U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit 1999), cert. denied, 121 S. Ct. 53 (U.S. Supreme Court 2000).

I think there are two reasons.  First, every court of appeals but one has held that people do not have "standing" to sue on 2nd amendment grounds.  Second amendment cases lose before they get started.

Second, the NRA is probably reluctant to get a definative ruling until they can get the court packed with more conservatives.

US vs Miller: Possession of short barrel shotgun was ruled against because it didn't fit in with what could be considered a weapon of a "militia"

1994 "Assault Weapon" ban ruled against EVIL black rifles because they were too similar to what a "militia" might use.

See the friggin Irony????

ALL friggin gun laws are un-Constitutional as I see it unless a person uses a firearm to commit a crime.

The second amendment has nothing to do with hunting and everything to do with protecting yourself against a tyrannical government.  Its beginning to look like we are getting to that point.

Bill_Clinton

Its beginning to look like we are getting to that point.


WAYYYYYYYYY past that point!!!!!

Someone posted this, and I quote "We had better try to communicate with the Republicans because we don't have any friends in the Democrats."


Huh. Well, you know, I may not be the brightest bulb in the marquee, but it would appear there are NO 2nd Amendment friendly folks in EITHER party.

I'll let the Hun and the other Republican lovers continue to stare the facts in the face and call them lies. The ONLY way this can be interpreted is that the top "good guy" and this administration want us dead. Period.


"The time is now near at hand which must probably determine whether Americans are to be free men or slaves, whether they are to have any property they can call their own, whether their houses and farms are to be pillaged and destroyed and themselves confined to a state of wretchedness from which no human efforts will deliver them. The fate of unborn millions will now depend, under God, on the courage of this army. Our cruel and unrelenting enemy leaves us only the choice of brave resistance or the most abject submission. We have, therefore, to resolve to conquer or die." -- George Washington

What is the NRA?  It is a huge, powerful, wealthy organization that Politicians suck up to.  What happens if gun control gets defeated?  People stop sending them money and they aren't big shots any more.  They want an enemy and don't want to win the big one.  People get in to politics and power games to do great things, but between doing what they have to to get where they want to be, and feeling the power, the use of power becomes the end itself, not the means.  Don't get me wrong, I belong to the NRA, I'm not a sideline whiner, but I believe that it is better than the alternative, not a savior.    

[img]http://www.firearmsrights.com/pics/ashcroft.gif[/img]

[(:|)]

Let me ask one question. Consider this....it is Ashcroft's job to represent the United States in a case regarding assault weapons as a First Amendment issue, arguing against said weapons. Now, honestly....what would you prefer? A long, decisive and well researched position, or the ravings of a gun grabbing nutbag with zero credibility. By pilfering those arguments for his position, you think MAYBE Ashcroft is giving an out, setting up enough chinks in the argument either to be well refuted or possibly argued on appeal?

We also need to face facts. Emerson didn't do anywhere near what everyone was hoping it would. The court system is still VERY hostile to cases on the Second amendment. It is NOT a viable position to argue.

I generally agree with the wait and see crowd. There's more to this than meets the eye.

You people and your God Damn chicken little syndrome.  You don't know jack about the situation, yet you run your mouth trashing Bush, Ashcroft, and the NRA.  Talk about fair weather gun owners.

First Ashcroft has to defend the AW ban in court.  If he didn't do his job the Democrats could try to have him removed for violating his oath of office.  Even if they didn't remove him, who would benefit? The Dems.

Second, it's good that it's based on First Amendment grounds.  Have you ever heard of a test case?  This is one.  If the government wins, all that happens is guns can continue to be banned by name.  The ban could still be challenged on 2nd amendment grounds.  If they lose, then the AW ban is null and void.  We have everything to gain and nothing more to lose.  

If however it was based on the 2nd and "shall not be infringed", and the government wins.  Then we lose everything because it would ruled constitutional to ban these types of guns.  There is no recorse or other way around the issue.

By going the First Amendment route first, if the government wins, it is buying time for the Supreme Court Justices to retire and be replaced with more conservative judges.  By the time the case is brought back up on 2nd Amendment grounds, the Supreme Court should be a much friendly place.

Third, by using the most anti-AW extreamist to present the arguments, it really hurts the anti's.  There will be no sugar coating any of the arguments like the anti's like to do.  It will be the anti's at their worst, which should offend most court justices.

So instead of whining like a bunch of pathetic little boys.  Sit down, shut up, and watch the show.  There isn't anything you can do about it anyway.

[img]http://www.midol.com/images/home_r10_c3_f2.gif[/img]

[(:|)]

Any idea on how to reach him?