Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 5/8/2002 6:06:12 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/8/2002 6:09:56 AM EDT by Benjamin0001]
WASHINGTON — 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, [url]http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,52223,00.html[/url]
Link Posted: 5/8/2002 6:10:11 AM EDT
Fixed the link
Link Posted: 5/8/2002 6:20:07 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/8/2002 6:21:14 AM EDT by White_horse]
Here is my favorite part of the article: "This action is proof positive that the worst fears about Attorney General Ashcroft have come true — his extreme ideology on guns has now become government policy," said Michael D. Barnes, president of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, which promotes gun control. So we can conclude that supporting the 2nd Amendment is now "extreme ideology?" -White Horse
Link Posted: 5/8/2002 6:32:28 AM EDT
--snip from Foxnews: "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 [b]"limited, narrowly tailored specific exceptions." [/b] --snip
View Quote
Please define for me: "limited, narrowly tailored specific exceptions." Would that be my Kimber .45, my Marlin .22 semi-auto, my AR15 ????? As long as the exception is about the same size as "yelling fire in a crowded theater" is to the 1st Amendment, we would probably never notice. But if the door is open, who's going to come along later and push it wide open?
Link Posted: 5/8/2002 7:00:56 AM EDT
[b]That right, however, is “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.” Olson, the administration’s top Supreme Court lawyer, was reflecting the view of Attorney General John Ashcroft that the Second Amendment confers the right to “keep and bear arms” to private citizens, and not merely to the “well-regulated militia” mentioned in the amendment’s text.[/b]
Link Posted: 5/8/2002 7:24:06 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/8/2002 7:25:22 AM EDT by The_Macallan]
I "think" this is win for us... isn't it?? I just find a lot of the language in this report confusing: [i]"...marks a full reversal of the government's 40-year-old [red]policy[/red] on gun ownership..."[/i] - What 40-year-old Gov't policy is this?? Where was this policy written? [i]"...his [red]extreme[/red] ideology on guns has now become government policy," said Michael D. Barnes, president of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, which promotes [red]gun control[/red]."[/i] - What is so extreme about "reasonable restrictions"?? WHO are the real extremists in this article?? - The Brady center promotes gun "control"?? According to WHO?? More like gun BANNING. [i]"...firearms that are particularly suited to [red]criminal misuse[/red]."[/i] - Prior to 1994, where's the stats showing how "misusing" a bayonette lug, flash suppressor or collapsible stock accounted for so many crimes?? Was anything really acomplished for our side by this "policy reversal". Or was it just small words stuffed in an obscure footnote?
Link Posted: 5/8/2002 8:24:10 AM EDT
CNSNews.com and KeepandBearArms.com are both presenting this as somehow important. I don't get it. It *may* help overturn a few bad laws, but honestly, there is enough latitude in their interpretation to drive a truck through--the Constitution speaks nothing of "prohibited persons" or "weapons with greater probability for criminal misuse." So what do we really have here? Political hand-waving at its finest. Thank you for playing! Bush wants you to *think* he a friend of the gun owner. Meanwhile, gun owners will get fucked in the end. Wait and see. This is the same twisted logic they use when they talk about "free trade" which means "carefully managed and centrally planned trade" which is the antithesis of free trade. Words mean nothing--deeds mean everything. The people in DC are snakes and weasels. My best evidence--the only way they will arm pilots is to first turn them into agents of the federal police state. Watch the sleight of hand here: They can't just let them carry, that would be too simple. Nope, they first have to become sworn federal police officers so government can grow that much more and so that every day citizens are shown that they are not to be trusted with firearms of any kind. Without doing that first, they risk the real reversal of their antigun policies. As far as "extremist" gun owners, well, whatever. I like submachine guns and Browning M1919s. Even the semiauto 1919 would be enough to make these government fools wet their pants. Meanwhile, it's our own government that paid to have them invented in the first place!
Link Posted: 5/8/2002 9:19:51 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/8/2002 9:21:06 AM EDT by MIerinMD]
Originally Posted By trickshot: CNSNews.com and KeepandBearArms.com are both presenting this as somehow important. I don't get it. It *may* help overturn a few bad laws, but honestly, there is enough latitude in their interpretation to drive a truck through--the Constitution speaks nothing of "prohibited persons" or "weapons with greater probability for criminal misuse." So what do we really have here?
View Quote
I guess I see it differently than you do. I see those terms, especially "weapons with greater probability for criminal misuse," as laying the groundwork for the beginning of the end of the AWB of 1994. Since evidence shows that bayonettes, flash suppressors or collapsable stocks do NOT increase the weapons probablity for criminal misuse, I think this is Ashcrofts way of easing the AWB out. Just my .02 worth
Link Posted: 5/8/2002 9:26:41 AM EDT
Originally Posted By MIerinMD: I guess I see it differently than you do. I see those terms, especially "weapons with greater probability for criminal misuse," as laying the groundwork for the beginning of the end of the AWB of 1994. Since evidence shows that bayonettes, flash suppressors or collapsable stocks do NOT increase the weapons probablity for criminal misuse, I think this is Ashcrofts way of easing the AWB out.
View Quote
Damn I hope you're right. Right now, I just don't see such logic flowing that freely in the Whitehouse (CFR, illegal alien "amnesty", etc)
Link Posted: 5/8/2002 9:33:23 AM EDT
I don't even read the newspaper anymore, the way they put forth stories there are always problems with a scentence here, a word there. A contradiction here and there. You know those slight twists of meaning which you hope everybody catches. Ben
Link Posted: 5/8/2002 9:44:09 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/8/2002 9:45:29 AM EDT by Scarecrow]
Originally Posted By MIerinMD: Since evidence shows that bayonettes, flash suppressors or collapsable stocks do NOT increase the weapons probablity for criminal misuse, I think this is Ashcrofts way of easing the AWB out. Just my .02 worth
View Quote
Wasnt there no evidence when they first passed the ban? The wording sounds more to me like he is saying the 2nd amendmant protects duck guns and bolt rifles, but the second they look evil that could be considered beneficial to criminals. Its all in the wording, even the Canadian liberal government says they beleive in reasonable gun control and the remouval of weapons that lend themselves to better use by the criminal element. They even said they wouldnt confiscate guns, but they are doing all the above. Who wants to bet this was done to take the heat off Ashcroft for his anti-gun rights battle in court right now? Simple no? Say your pro-gun and say its the right of people to own guns all the while fighting the NRA in court.
Link Posted: 5/8/2002 9:47:13 AM EDT
And ANOTHER thing - Why TF does this report ONLY quote the "critics" of this policy and NO "supporters"??? We see the the quotes from the Gov't. We see the quotes from Brady Central Command criticizing private gun ownership. BUT WHERE'S THE NRA SPOKESPERSON'S QUOTES SUPPORTING PRIVATE GUN OWNERSHIP?? Oh... I guess the LiberalMedia only want to include CRITICS of private gun ownership! Far be it for the Media to print a BALANCED report on Gov't firearm policies. To LiberalJournalists, there is no "other" side of the story when it comes to guns. [pissed]
Link Posted: 5/8/2002 9:55:42 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/8/2002 9:56:43 AM EDT by MIerinMD]
Originally Posted By Scarecrow: Wasnt there no evidence when they first passed the ban? The wording sounds more to me like he is saying the 2nd amendmant protects duck guns and bolt rifles, but the second they look evil that could be considered beneficial to criminals. Its all in the wording....
View Quote
It is also in the "interpretation." The evidence was there back in 1994 but: 1) There wasn't an attempt to define the AWB by those terms, and 2) The AG (the head lawyer in this country) was Janet Reno. Who most certainly didn't see the Second Amendment the same way as our current administration ( [url] http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,52223,00.html [/url] )
Link Posted: 5/8/2002 11:58:18 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/8/2002 12:06:51 PM EDT by eje]
If this is an incorrect interpretation, please say so: The DOJ is asking the Supreme Court [u]not[/u] to grant cert in the two cases. From what I can tell, the DOJ agrees with both the reasoning and result of the Emerson apellate decision, which basically said that although the second amendment confers an individual right to bear arms, this is subject to regulation, and a man subject to a restraining order violated the law at issue by possessing a firearm. The DOJ also agrees with the result of the Haney decision (possession of machine guns not protected by the second amendment). Not sure if the DOJ agrees with the reasoning of the decision (i.e., 2nd amendment does not guarantee right to keep and bear machine gun in absence of reasonable relationship to the preservation of a militia). In both cases, the DOJ wants to leave these appellate decisions intact and does not want the Supreme Court to hear the appeals and render a decision interpreting the second amendment. Is that a fair summary?
Link Posted: 5/8/2002 12:05:13 PM EDT
Originally Posted By eje: If this is an incorrect interpretation, please say so: The DOJ is asking the Supreme Court [u]not[/u] to grant cert in the two cases. From what I can tell, the DOJ agrees with both the reasoning and result of the Emerson apellate decision, which basically said that although the second amendment confers an individual right to bear arms, this is subject to regulation, and a man subject to a restraining order violated the law at issue by possessing a firearm. On the other hand, the DOJ agrees only with the result of the Haney decision (possession of machine guns not protected by the second amendment) but not with the appellate court's reasoning (i.e., second amendment does not confer an individual right). In both cases, the DOJ wants to leave these appellate decisions intact and does not want the Supreme Court to hear the appeals and render a decision interpreting the second amendment. Is that a fair summary?
View Quote
No, because if the supremes don't here the case then Emerson is still only the law of the land in the 5th Circut jurisdiction. UNLESS Justice wants to abandon these cases, and look for other ones...
Link Posted: 5/8/2002 12:21:48 PM EDT
ArmdLbrl, I don't think the DOJ wants the Supreme Court to hear the cases. The DOJ is not shopping for second amendment cases to present to the Supreme Court so that the court can rule that the 2nd amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms. Instead, in these 2 particular cases, the DOJ is representing the U.S., which "won" the underlying appeals in criminal prosecutions. The DOJ already has the result it wants, i.e., the defendants have been convicted, and if the Supreme Court hears the appeals, the convictions may be reversed. I think this is what's going on here. Ed
Link Posted: 5/8/2002 2:28:13 PM EDT
I'd have to agree with trickshot here. This is just a gesture to throw gunowners a bone...gunowners who have been waiting for over a year now for something (anything) to show for their vote for Bush. I will not believe any administration or any "policy" until I see the mass repealing of thousands of gun laws.
Link Posted: 5/8/2002 3:10:01 PM EDT
Originally Posted By stubbs: I'd have to agree with trickshot here. This is just a gesture to throw gunowners a bone...gunowners who have been waiting for over a year now for something (anything) to show for their vote for Bush. I will not believe any administration or any "policy" until I see the mass repealing of thousands of gun laws.
View Quote
i get the impression that it will take something similar to [url=www.stanley2002.org/mgmpetition.htm]this [/url] to make that mass repealing of laws happen.
Link Posted: 5/8/2002 3:32:12 PM EDT
"WASHINGTON — 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." Someone mentioned in another thread how utterly futile this actually is. Our right to gun ownership is subject to the see-saw whims of government interpretation. Does anyone here doubt that the next Democrat in office will say "We believe the second ammendment refers to a collective right of a state to form a militia, not the personal right of individuals to own firearms."
Link Posted: 5/8/2002 3:36:29 PM EDT
Originally Posted By the_survivalist:
Originally Posted By stubbs: I'd have to agree with trickshot here. This is just a gesture to throw gunowners a bone...gunowners who have been waiting for over a year now for something (anything) to show for their vote for Bush. I will not believe any administration or any "policy" until I see the mass repealing of thousands of gun laws.
View Quote
i get the impression that it will take something similar to [url=www.stanley2002.org/mgmpetition.htm]this [/url] to make that mass repealing of laws happen.
View Quote
survivalist, you should post that in the main discussion forum Couldn't people get arrested for marching with loaded guns or is that the main point that we would like to see them try.
Link Posted: 5/8/2002 3:50:17 PM EDT
Originally Posted By 1911greg:
Originally Posted By the_survivalist:
Originally Posted By stubbs: I'd have to agree with trickshot here. This is just a gesture to throw gunowners a bone...gunowners who have been waiting for over a year now for something (anything) to show for their vote for Bush. I will not believe any administration or any "policy" until I see the mass repealing of thousands of gun laws.
View Quote
i get the impression that it will take something similar to [url=www.stanley2002.org/mgmpetition.htm]this [/url] to make that mass repealing of laws happen.
View Quote
survivalist, you should post that in the main discussion forum Couldn't people get arrested for marching with loaded guns or is that the main point that we would like to see them try.
View Quote
i posted iot a few times in GD as its own topic, with mixed results. yes it is illegal according to these unconstitutional laws to even pesess a firearm in the DC area. we don't want to have to do this, but it may come down to it. this is not only a sighn up sheet for the MGM, but it is also a final petition for redress of grievences. by issueing this we are makeing the final legal peacefull request for review of the unconstitutional laws. this encompasses much more than just gun rights.
Link Posted: 5/8/2002 3:53:27 PM EDT
Let's hope this is a good turn, they overturned legal segregation (the law of the land) didn't they?
Link Posted: 5/8/2002 4:53:52 PM EDT
DOJ is playing both sides of the fence. They need to have the Supreme Court NOT grant cert, and NOT hear the case, so that there is no national, binding ruling on the 2nd Amendment. That would make ALL gun control laws subject to "strict scrutiny", and most of them would be thrown out on challenge. But there are also due process and commerce clause issues here, too, which could SEVERELY hamper the Feds ability to regulate firearms. Plus the nightmare (for the anti's) of the SCOTUS deciding that infantry automatic weapons (not crew-served) have a reasonable relationship to a "well-regulated militia" and are therefore protected for citizen ownership. On the other hand, they need to make good on a legitimate, historically accurate interpretation of the 2nd amendment, and Ashcroft is doing exactly what his job says... upholding the Constitution. Personally, I hope the SCOTUS grants cert. Either way, we will get a decision and know where we stand. Hopefully Scalia will prevail. BTW - the "narrowly tailored" being talked about would apply to violent felons, the mentally incompetent and minors, just as it does now.
Top Top