Quoted:
I seen on Fox today that the DOJ finally acknowledeges that the 2ND A. in the Constitution that it is the right of the individual to have guns unlike previous administrations. I think they said for the past 40 years the government did not beleive it was the right of the individual only the right of the state militia. That's why we elected G W as our president, maybe he is making true on his election promises.
View Quote
Actually, in a letter the NRA got a hold of, Ashcroft spelled out the administrations position to his subordiante US Attorneys and Prosecutors nearly a year ago...
But it is fairly meaningless as Clinton era laws are still on the books and they are still obligated to enforce them. This change of opinion will only become a change in law if the US Supreme Court agrees to hear Emerson and decides to uphold the appellate ruling in Emerson.
Since 5th Circut has ruled, Ashcroft has told his prosecuters to use it as a guideline for any case with 2nd amendment implications they come across. But it isnt law, and could be reversed by simply removing Ashcroft.
This results in the ironic position that Ashcroft HAS to proscute Clinton-era cases before the Supreme Court, using the old position that the 2nd is only a collective right, in order to get the court to make a ruling. A favorable ruling WOULD make Ashcrofts interpretation the law of the land, would end any debate on the position of the second, and put a number of states like NY, CA, NJ, IL in a seriously vulnerable position.