http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A49702-2002May7.html

it is kinda interesting.

Kevin.

[url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A49702-2002May7.html[/url]

Right On! Hope the AW ban sunsets

Yes its unusual to see a commie pinko rag like the Post print such a story...
[peep]

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 ?

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."

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.  

WHAT Part of[/b][size=5]shall not be infringed[/size=5][/b] DO these overeducated F*****G IDIOTS NOT UNDERSTAND?

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!



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.