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]

Fixed the link

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

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?

[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]

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?

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!  

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

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)

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

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.

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]

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] )

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?

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...

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

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.

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.

"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."

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.

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.

Let's hope this is a good turn, they overturned legal segregation (the law of the land) didn't they?

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.