Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 5/8/2002 4:26:01 PM EDT
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A49702-2002May7.html it is kinda interesting. Kevin.
Link Posted: 5/8/2002 4:28:27 PM EDT
[url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A49702-2002May7.html[/url]
Link Posted: 5/8/2002 4:54:15 PM EDT
Right On! Hope the AW ban sunsets
Link Posted: 5/8/2002 4:57:02 PM EDT
Yes its unusual to see a commie pinko rag like the Post print such a story... [peep]
Link Posted: 5/8/2002 4:57:49 PM EDT
Read the article and have seen a couple of reports on FOX today. What I didn't realize is that 'apparently' no President has been an advocate of individual gun ownership rights since the Emerson decision. Maybe I have this wrong ?
Link Posted: 5/8/2002 5:06:30 PM EDT
But, Olson said in the briefs, "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 (state) militia or engaged in active military service or training, to possess and bear their own firearms." He said the rights were "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." I see government double speak here. "subject to reasonable restrictions designed to prevent possession by unfit persons (can they not change the meaning of "unfit" at will) or to restrict the possession of types of firearms that are particularly suited to (are not all firearms "particularly suited") criminal misuse."
Link Posted: 5/8/2002 5:25:48 PM EDT
1) The Supreme Court has not changed anything. Although never explicitly ruled on, all previous references have considered it an individual right. 2) Emerson and Haney are being appealed. The SCOTUS has to agree to hear one or both cases (granting cert). Today's filing was the DOJ's response to the appeal / request for hearing. The SCOTUS has not agreed to hear anything, and DOJ is asking them NOT TO hear the appeals. 3) IF the SCOTUS hears the appeal and holds the 2nd to be, in fact, an individual right, that simply means that (like the 1st Amendment) any law infringing that right must have a compelling reason to do so. Keeping weapons out of the hands of violent criminals, infants and the insane would fall in that category. 4) All that Ashcroft has done is honestly do his job... uphold the Constitution, while arguing that the Federal law in question is not unconstitutional. We haven't won anything yet.
Link Posted: 5/8/2002 6:01:01 PM EDT
I just watched McNeal News Hour on PBS. The Democrats and Gun Control Lobbiests were on saying how Ashcroft was "hijacking" the judicial process and was going to repeal all gun laws, both state and federal, and anyone who wants one is going to be able to carry a machine gun wherever they want... And I turn this on and find all these people saying that this was just doublespeek to cover further limits upon firearms ownership... One or both of the above groups has to be mentally ill...
Link Posted: 5/8/2002 6:07:24 PM EDT
Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl: I just watched McNeal News Hour on PBS. The Democrats and Gun Control Lobbiests were on saying how Ashcroft was "hijacking" the judicial process and was going to repeal all gun laws, both state and federal, and anyone who wants one is going to be able to carry a machine gun wherever they want... And I turn this on and find all these people saying that this was just doublespeek to cover further limits upon firearms ownership... One or both of the above groups has to be mentally ill...
View Quote
Name calling like this will continue to divide us as a whole. And if you do not think that the gov. uses doublespeak, you are sadly mistaken.
Link Posted: 5/8/2002 6:08:54 PM EDT
The supremes don't have to hear nothing. Plus, never forget that the chief upheld Miranda personally. They can wait and wait and wait until they get a case with a fact pattern that lets them rule that a statewide gun ban is okay.
Link Posted: 5/8/2002 6:10:14 PM EDT
I agree with ar10er. If, one day, they decide handguns are "particularly suited to criminal misuse", does this not give them the right to ban them all? I don't think we won anything. In fact, I see this as setting the stage to ban handguns and SURs.
Link Posted: 5/8/2002 6:48:16 PM EDT
Mattja - what you're quoting is DOJ's response... not a Supreme Court ruling. The Supreme Court held in Miller that to be protected under the 2nd amendment, the weapon had to have a reasonable relationship to a well-regulated militia... and I believe the Beretta 92FS is the military sidearm, not to mention everything issued as a police duty gun... the only way to completely ban firearms is to either get a decision that says only active militia can have weapons (which has never happened), or repeal the 2nd amendment. what we really need, though, is a positive affirmation that the 2nd amendment means precisely what it says.
Link Posted: 5/8/2002 6:53:17 PM EDT
Irrelevant. Not even worth the time it took me to read it or to make this post about it. Give me a call when one of the major gun control laws becomes null and void. Until then, the Bush Administration doesn't impress me at all. All dog & pony, no substance. I don't trust Ashcroft--he's the guy who covered up the statue Lady Justice's exposed tit. What the hell? It's clear to me that the whole brief (or whatever it's called) was filed for was to discourage the Supremes from taking the Emerson case appeal.
Link Posted: 5/8/2002 7:17:57 PM EDT
But the appeals court also ruled that the Second Amendment is subject to "limited, narrowly tailored specific exceptions or restrictions . . . that are reasonable and not inconsistent with the right of Americans generally to keep and bear their private arms as historically understood in this country."
View Quote
WHAT Part of[/b][size=5]shall not be infringed[/size=5][/b] DO these overeducated F*****G IDIOTS NOT UNDERSTAND?
Link Posted: 5/8/2002 10:52:31 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/8/2002 10:53:39 PM EDT by mattja]
Justice Department spokeswoman Barbara Comstock said the two briefs reflected Ashcroft's views on the Second Amendment and the department's determination "to defend vigorously the constitutionality, under the Second Amendment, of all existing federal firearms laws."
View Quote
So, they are basically saying, all firearms laws from Miller, through 1968, 1994, etc., are constitutional and should be enforced? Why should we be pleased with that? We want these laws repealed!
In the briefs, Olson stated the Bush administration's position on the Second Amendment while also arguing that the Supreme Court shouldn't accept the two cases for review, thereby letting stand appeals court rulings that upheld the constitutionality of provisions of federal gun control laws.
View Quote
Again, their main concern appears to be upholding the constitutionality of federal gun control laws. Why the hell should we be happy with that? So, the feds are urging SCOTUS not to hear Emerson or the Haney case as their feeling is the Second Amendment is subject to limitations, such as local AW bans, class-3 bans, etc. Localities have the right to ban ownership of firearms to those who are under a perfunctory restraining order? We should be all for that? So, God forbid, my wife decides to divorce me, as part of the standard divorce proceedings, her lawyer gets a restraining order on me and I have to give up my firearms? Again, why in the hell should we be happy with any of this BS? It's nothing more than the status quo! In fact, if SCOTUS decides not to hear Emerson, it may hurt us more in the long run. I don't see any good coming from this.
Top Top