User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 5/7/2002 5:03:26 PM EDT
[#1]
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?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2002 5:03:53 PM EDT
[#2]
Tonite on ABC, Peter Jennings seemed dumbfounded by this [:D]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2002 5:08:18 PM EDT
[#3]
I'd like to see what Tom Brokejaw has to say...
Why were you watching Peter Jennings anyway??? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2002 5:08:22 PM EDT
[#4]
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. [url] |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2002 5:14:04 PM EDT
[#5]
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? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2002 5:14:30 PM EDT
[#6]
Quoted: I'd like to see what Tom Brokejaw has to say... Why were you watching Peter Jennings anyway??? 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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2002 5:16:35 PM EDT
[#7]
[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!!! |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2002 5:18:14 PM EDT
[#8]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2002 5:18:39 PM EDT
[#9]
Quoted: At the same time, Justice Department lawyers said the high court need not test that principle now. 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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2002 5:18:55 PM EDT
[#10]
Quoted: [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!!! Oh, you mean like with a detachable magazine, flash hider, bayonet lug, pistol grip, etc? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2002 5:45:10 PM EDT
[#11]
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" [:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2002 8:39:00 PM EDT
[#12]
"particularly suited to criminal misuse" Hmmm...sounds like AR's to me.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2002 9:22:54 PM EDT
[#13]
Quoted: Quoted: I'd like to see what Tom Brokejaw has to say... Why were you watching Peter Jennings anyway??? 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. Comical really..... |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2002 9:36:47 PM EDT
[#14]
Quoted: Quoted: [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!!! Oh, you mean like with a detachable magazine, flash hider, bayonet lug, pistol grip, etc? [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] |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2002 9:40:41 PM EDT
[#15]
Quoted: Quoted: At the same time, Justice Department lawyers said the high court need not test that principle now. 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. 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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2002 9:40:41 PM EDT
[#16]
Quoted: 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" [:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!] Whoever your are, they said it is the RESTRICTIONS that have narrow scope NOT THE AMENEDMENTS... |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2002 10:38:54 PM EDT
[#17]
Quoted: 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? 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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2002 4:12:57 AM EDT
[#18]
Quoted: Quoted: At the same time, Justice Department lawyers said the high court need not test that principle now. 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. 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 |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2002 4:20:33 AM EDT
[#19]
Quoted: Quoted: 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" Whoever your are, they said it is the RESTRICTIONS that have narrow scope NOT THE AMENEDMENTS... 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. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
