Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 5/10/2002 9:45:26 PM EDT
From [url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A63065-2002May9.html[/url]:
Guns and Justice Friday, May 10, 2002; Page A36 THE U.S. SOLICITOR general has a duty to defend acts of Congress before the Supreme Court. This week, Solicitor General Ted Olson -- and by extension his bosses, Attorney General John Ashcroft and President Bush -- took a position regarding guns that will undermine that mission. Historically, the Justice Department has adopted a narrow reading of the Constitution's Second Amendment, which states that "a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Along with nearly all courts in the past century, it has read that as protecting only the public's collective right to bear arms in the context of militia service. Now the administration has reversed this view. In a pair of appeals, Mr. Olson contends that "the Second Amendment more broadly protects the rights of individuals, including persons who are not members of any militia . . . to possess and bear their own firearms." Mr. Ashcroft insists the department remains prepared to defend all federal gun laws. Having given away its strongest argument, however, it will be doing so with its hands tied behind its back. Laws will now be defended not as presumptively valid but as narrow exceptions to a broad constitutional right -- one subject, as Mr. Olson put it, only 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." This may sound like a common-sense balancing act. But where exactly does the Second Amendment, if it guarantees individual rights, permit "reasonable restrictions"? And where does its protection exempt firearms that might be well suited for crime? Mr. Ashcroft has compared the gun ownership right with the First Amendment's protection of speech -- which can be limited only in a fashion narrowly tailored to accomplish compelling state interests. If that's the model, most federal gun laws would sooner or later fall. After all, it would not be constitutional to subject someone to a background check before permitting him to worship or to make a political speech. If gun ownership is truly a parallel right, why would the Brady background check be constitutional? The Justice Department traditionally errs on the other side -- arguing for constitutional interpretations that increase congressional flexibility and law enforcement policy options. The great weight of judicial precedent holds that there is no fundamental individual right to own a gun. Staking out a contrary position may help ingratiate the Bush administration to the gun lobby. But it greatly disserves the interests of the United States. © 2002 The Washington Post Company
View Quote
If anybody doesn't understand yet why it is important to vote Republican, just imagine if Al Gore had won... Reminder: keep those NRA memberships current! Greg out.
Link Posted: 5/10/2002 9:47:32 PM EDT
[img]http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/smilie/thumbs.gif[/img]
Link Posted: 5/10/2002 10:16:28 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/10/2002 10:19:13 PM EDT by DJbump]
Seems all well and good, ON PAPER. These same folks signed the Patriot Act into law, and Ashcroft has urged the SCOTUS to NOT hear any of the pending cases on the 2nd Amendment. One must not judge the current administration by what they SAY, but rather by what they DO. The SAY they believe in the 2nd Amendment, yet they uphold laws that clearly are in opposition to it, and they passed one of the most unconstitutional "acts" in the history of this nation. I know there will be many who bitch and whine and moan about how I'm wrong, or that anyone else who might agree with what I've just said is also wrong, but the members of this administration are treasonous bastards. Why? Their ACTIONS, not their WORDS. The germ of destruction of our nation is in the power of the judiciary, an irresponsible body - working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall render powerless the checks of one branch over the other and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated." -- Thomas Jefferson, 1821
Link Posted: 5/10/2002 10:35:20 PM EDT
Washington post: what a POS paper. Nothing but blatant liberal propaganda. Great news though. I just love it when Liberals whine! Yet another great reason to vote Republican. God Bless GWB.
Link Posted: 5/10/2002 10:39:54 PM EDT
Originally Posted By DJbump: Seems all well and good, ON PAPER. These same folks signed the Patriot Act into law, and Ashcroft has urged the SCOTUS to NOT hear any of the pending cases on the 2nd Amendment.
View Quote
Yup, and don't forget the Campaign Finance Reform Act that a certain president vowed not to sign into law, but did anyway. It is all just business as usual, but packaged in pretty paper for the political party sheeple to ooh and ah over.
Link Posted: 5/11/2002 5:06:52 AM EDT
Oh yeah, all just business as usual...except that they just did what NO ADMINISTRATION has done in the last FORTY YEARS. The reaction by some people here just confirms my opinion of them as characitures of themself.
Link Posted: 5/11/2002 5:42:46 AM EDT
Originally Posted By RikWriter: Oh yeah, all just business as usual...except that they just did what NO ADMINISTRATION has done in the last FORTY YEARS. The reaction by some people here just confirms my opinion of them as characitures of themself.
View Quote
Olson also stated, that the govt. can tell us WHO and WHAT kind of weapons we may own. Nothing has changed, it's all smoke and mirrors..
Link Posted: 5/11/2002 6:14:16 AM EDT
Originally Posted By liberty86: Olson also stated, that the govt. can tell us WHO and WHAT kind of weapons we may own. Nothing has changed, it's all smoke and mirrors..
View Quote
See what I mean?
Link Posted: 5/11/2002 6:22:13 AM EDT
Originally Posted By RikWriter: Oh yeah, all just business as usual...except that they just did what NO ADMINISTRATION has done in the last FORTY YEARS.
View Quote
I gotta agree. This Administration has shown more respect for the 2nd Ammendment than any other. They will make mistakes like everyone else but they do have more resolve than we've seen in a long time. Thank God we have them and not gwhore!
Link Posted: 5/11/2002 7:48:49 AM EDT
Lets see, "particularly suited for criminal misuse": All ARs All AKs All SKSs All FALs All M1s All M1As All M1A1s All TEC-9s All MAC-10s All Pistols All Rifes except one shot 22s All magazines over one shot capacity The list can be endless. I don't see any good news in the statement except that the government can do anything they want, whenever they want, to whoever they want.
Link Posted: 5/11/2002 11:34:55 AM EDT
Originally Posted By RikWriter: Oh yeah, all just business as usual...except that they just did what NO ADMINISTRATION has done in the last FORTY YEARS.
View Quote
That position forty years ago did not stop the GCA, The Brady Bill, The Crime Bill, etc, etc. I guess its just a personal fault of mine that I don't trust someone until they actually prove themselves through actions, not by throwing certain groups a bone to get them to shut up.
Link Posted: 5/11/2002 11:46:04 AM EDT
Top Top