Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 5/7/2002 4:59:26 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/7/2002 5:19:20 PM EDT by Orionfly]
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Bush administration has told the Supreme Court for the first time that it believes the Constitution protects an individual's right to possess guns, reversing the government's longstanding interpretation of the Second Amendment. At the same time, Justice Department lawyers said the high court need not test that principle now. [b]``The current position of the United States ... 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,''[\b] Solicitor General Theodore Olson wrote in two court filings this week. That right, however, is [b]``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.'' [/b] http://wire.ap.org/APnews/?SITE=RIPRJ&FRONTID=HOME
Link Posted: 5/7/2002 5:03:26 PM EDT
didn't ashcroft reaffirm the individual's right early in bush's presidency (like feb of 2001 or somewhere aroudn there) in his response letter to the NRA?
Link Posted: 5/7/2002 5:03:53 PM EDT
Tonite on ABC, Peter Jennings seemed dumbfounded by this [:D]
Link Posted: 5/7/2002 5:08:18 PM EDT
I'd like to see what Tom Brokejaw has to say... Why were you watching Peter Jennings anyway???
Link Posted: 5/7/2002 5:08:22 PM EDT
Here's the critical cite:
At the time it was not clear whether Ashcroft was expressing his personal view, or stating a new policy position for the federal government. That question was mostly answered last November, when Ashcroft sent a letter to federal prosecutors praising an appeals court decision that found ``the Second Amendment does protect individual rights,'' but noting that those rights could be subject to ``limited, narrowly tailored specific exceptions.'' The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of appeals went on to reject arguments from Texas physician Timothy Emerson that a 1994 federal gun law was unconstitutional. The law was intended to deny guns to people under restraining orders. ``In my view, the Emerson opinion, and the balance is strikes, generally reflect the correct understanding of the Second Amendment,'' Ashcroft told prosecutors. Emerson appealed to the Supreme Court, putting the Justice Department in an awkward position. Although the government won its case in the lower court by using the old interpretation of the Second Amendment, Ashcroft had switched gears by the time the case reached the high court. Olson's court filing Monday [red]urged the high court not to get involved[/red], and acknowledged the policy change in a lengthy footnote.
View Quote
[url]
Link Posted: 5/7/2002 5:14:04 PM EDT
the ap wire mentions the last ruling in 1939- that was miller right? wasnt that over what weapons a militia should have not who should have them?
Link Posted: 5/7/2002 5:14:30 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Hydguy: I'd like to see what Tom Brokejaw has to say... Why were you watching Peter Jennings anyway???
View Quote
I like to watch all the networks just to see how differently they report the news. Another thing I love to do is spread out the Washington Post next to the Washington Times and compare....now thats funny.
Link Posted: 5/7/2002 5:16:35 PM EDT
[b]"to restrict the possession of types of firearms that are particularly suited to criminal misuse.'' [/b] That means anything that will shoot!! PAY ATTENTION!!!
Link Posted: 5/7/2002 5:18:14 PM EDT
The 1994 law is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. There is already PLENTY of judicial precidence that affirms the "individual right" stance. Ashcroft is starting to back peddle. Unless there is a HISTORY of violence, a restraining order should NOT be sufficient to keep you from having guns. Restraining orders are commenplace in divorce cases, and creates a defacto ban on ownership if a divorce drags on.
Link Posted: 5/7/2002 5:18:39 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Orionfly: At the same time, Justice Department lawyers said the high court need not test that principle now.
View Quote
So we get to see-saw with every administration's whims? That is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Wait, maybe he's waiting until Bush can pack the bench, and then he'll flip-flop on whether the high-court needs to hear it or not.
Link Posted: 5/7/2002 5:18:55 PM EDT
Originally Posted By liberty86: [b]"to restrict the possession of types of firearms that are particularly suited to criminal misuse.'' [/b] That means anything that will shoot!! PAY ATTENTION!!!
View Quote
Oh, you mean like with a detachable magazine, flash hider, bayonet lug, pistol grip, etc?
Link Posted: 5/7/2002 5:45:10 PM EDT
this is a typical republican "victory" - they state the obvious "we should lower taxes, free trade, school choice, respect the bill of rights etc. etc... and then compromise every principle for their own political ends. the amendments MEAN WHAT THEY SAY!!!! there is no "narrow definition" [:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!]
Link Posted: 5/7/2002 8:39:00 PM EDT
"particularly suited to criminal misuse" Hmmm...sounds like AR's to me.
Link Posted: 5/7/2002 9:22:54 PM EDT
Originally Posted By ECS:
Originally Posted By Hydguy: I'd like to see what Tom Brokejaw has to say... Why were you watching Peter Jennings anyway???
View Quote
I like to watch all the networks just to see how differently they report the news. Another thing I love to do is spread out the Washington Post next to the Washington Times and compare....now thats funny.
View Quote
Comical really.....
Link Posted: 5/7/2002 9:36:47 PM EDT
Originally Posted By ECS:
Originally Posted By liberty86: [b]"to restrict the possession of types of firearms that are particularly suited to criminal misuse.'' [/b] That means anything that will shoot!! PAY ATTENTION!!!
View Quote
Oh, you mean like with a detachable magazine, flash hider, bayonet lug, pistol grip, etc?
View Quote
[b]Damn drive-by bayonettings!![/b] [b]...and those damn lethal pistol grips!![/b] [b]"Guns don't kill - flash suppressors do!![/b] [b]Hunters my ass! Bulsh!t!! - Ban the "sniper-rifles"!![/b] [b]...and those un-aimable "riot-guns" too!![/b] [b]They're ALL just designed to kill innocent people!![/b]
Link Posted: 5/7/2002 9:40:41 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Texason:
Originally Posted By Orionfly: At the same time, Justice Department lawyers said the high court need not test that principle now.
View Quote
So we get to see-saw with every administration's whims? That is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Wait, maybe he's waiting until Bush can pack the bench, and then he'll flip-flop on whether the high-court needs to hear it or not.
View Quote
You took the words right out of my mullet. "See-saw" is exactly what is going on. Push-me, pull-you. The gov't is like the weather - consistently always throwing a new one at us.
Link Posted: 5/7/2002 9:40:41 PM EDT
Originally Posted By nels: this is a typical republican "victory" - they state the obvious "we should lower taxes, free trade, school choice, respect the bill of rights etc. etc... and then compromise every principle for their own political ends. the amendments MEAN WHAT THEY SAY!!!! there is no "narrow definition" [:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!]
View Quote
Whoever your are, they said it is the RESTRICTIONS that have narrow scope NOT THE AMENEDMENTS...
Link Posted: 5/7/2002 10:38:54 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/7/2002 10:42:24 PM EDT by DonS]
Originally Posted By Orionfly: the ap wire mentions the last ruling in 1939- that was miller right? wasnt that over what weapons a militia should have not who should have them?
View Quote
The Miller decision was that short barreled shotguns are not protected by the Second. In Miller, the Supremes cited an 1840 state supreme court case that ruled that the right to keep arms was an individual right, but that this right only applied to weapons sutable for militia use, and that weapons primarly used in brawls (and having little military value) are not protected.
Link Posted: 5/8/2002 4:12:57 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Texason:
Originally Posted By Orionfly: At the same time, Justice Department lawyers said the high court need not test that principle now.
View Quote
So we get to see-saw with every administration's whims? That is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Wait, maybe he's waiting until Bush can pack the bench, and then he'll flip-flop on whether the high-court needs to hear it or not.
View Quote
Believe me, we dont need the courts to get involved! even the strictest constitutional interpretation wont prevent extensive regulation; if the courts get involved, setting various tests etc, then the states or congress are practically INVITED to extend the laws to their constitutional limits
Link Posted: 5/8/2002 4:20:33 AM EDT
Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:
Originally Posted By nels: this is a typical republican "victory" - they state the obvious "we should lower taxes, free trade, school choice, respect the bill of rights etc. etc... and then compromise every principle for their own political ends. the amendments MEAN WHAT THEY SAY!!!! there is no "narrow definition"
View Quote
Whoever your are, they said it is the RESTRICTIONS that have narrow scope NOT THE AMENEDMENTS...
View Quote
My name is Nels, and I was referring to the the supreme court's ability to contort the meaning and interpretations of the bill of rights, for example the 1st amendment not covering pornography etc. The irony of the Miller ruling was that the supreme court's narrow interpretation of the 2nd amendment should allow us to carry M-4s. Now they want to interpret the amendment both ways. You can have some firearms sometimes but we'll decide what and when. I don't think the 2nd amendment supports that view.
Top Top