Ashcroft Says it is an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT!!!

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Ashcroft Says it is an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT!!!

Posted: 5/23/2001 4:58:40 AM EDT

From Washington Times:
[url]http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20010523-70615251.htm[/url]

Attorney General John Ashcroft has reversed a Clinton administration policy on the Second Amendment, saying the Justice Department has "reaffirmed a long-held opinion" that all law-abiding citizens have the individual right to keep and bear firearms.

See URL for complete article.

Posted: 5/23/2001 5:00:20 AM EDT

[#1]

Thank God for Ashcroft. I'm glad as hell we got him in there.

Posted: 5/23/2001 5:04:43 AM EDT

[#2]

Sorta' like the reason we voted for George W.,
right?

Eric The Hun[>]:)]

Posted: 5/23/2001 5:06:40 AM EDT

[#3]

So what exactly does this mean for us? I appreciate his statements and thank god we have an honest attorney general. But will this change anything?

mike

Posted: 5/23/2001 5:06:56 AM EDT

[#4]

Walk the walk, now Ashy.

Posted: 5/23/2001 5:10:36 AM EDT

[#5]

This sounds good and evrything, but define [b]"protects the private ownership of firearms for lawful purposes."[/b]

Now this I do like!

[b]Mr. Ashcroft has long been a supporter of a Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, and Justice Department officials noted yesterday that attorneys general of both parties have taken similar positions, dating back to 1934 when Homer Cummings testified before Congress that the first federal gun-control statute was unconstitutional.[/b]

...and this I don't really care for.

[b]Mr. Ashcroft has vigorously supported increased [i]enforcement of existing gun laws[/i]. The Justice Department´s $24.6 billion budget for fiscal 2002 is aimed at reducing gun crime, and such other goals as stopping violence against women, combating drugs and guaranteeing the rights of all citizens.[/b]

Kind of a contradiction if you ask me.

Posted: 5/23/2001 5:15:04 AM EDT

[#6]

Good for him,but will Bush listen?

Posted: 5/23/2001 5:20:11 AM EDT

[#7]

He can talk cr@p all he wants. Talk is cheap and he knows it. The proof will be if the American Terrorist Federation gets reigned in but they don't answer to him.

Posted: 5/23/2001 5:24:28 AM EDT

[#8]

W is a delegator, much as Reagan was. As long as Ashcroft does his job, the President will stay out of the way.

Posted: 5/23/2001 5:26:30 AM EDT

[#9]

At least he has it in his head. We need someone inside the beltway looking out for the constitution. Details are important however; you need a plan before you work out the details. Sounds like a decent start so far.

Posted: 5/23/2001 9:20:43 AM EDT

[#10]

As soon as I see the ATF reduced to AT then I will believe it.

Posted: 5/23/2001 9:30:44 AM EDT

[#11]

I don't like the AGs ability to dictate our rights, which happened with Reno stating it was a state's right. Ashcroft now states it's an individual right.

What ever direction the wind's blowing...our rights.

Posted: 5/23/2001 9:37:23 AM EDT

[#12]

Sweep, I don't want to jump to conclusions, but I think that when the article says " Mr. Ashcroft has vigorously supported increased enforcement of existing gun laws," they are trying to empasize the difference between him and Klinton's goon. I agree there are a whole s*&%load of laws that make no sense, but there are some that are worth enforcing. I would guess that most of us, while we don't agree with the laws we at least follow them. Klinton was waging a war on us by pushing for ever increasing restrictions without enforcing them. I think the article aims to say that Ashcroft would rather enforce what is on the books rather than continue to punish the law abiding.

Posted: 5/23/2001 9:44:30 AM EDT

[#13]

Nice to see some good news for a change.

Hunter out...

Posted: 5/23/2001 10:13:17 AM EDT

[#14]

Ashcroft is right on as it is an individual right... no argument here. However, he needs to stress that if anyone wants to change it, the constitution is very clear on the proper and ONLY way to make amendments.

Posted: 5/23/2001 10:23:14 AM EDT

[#15]

Ashcroft supports the ban on "assault" weapons, as well as trigger locks.

Posted: 5/23/2001 10:24:03 AM EDT

[#16]

Yes, but does he also believe in the part that says SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED???

Posted: 5/23/2001 10:24:07 AM EDT

[#17]

This is very important stuff. From the article:

"Solicitor General Seth Waxman, a Clinton appointee, even argued in a 1994 court case involving a Texas man that the amendment "does not extend an individual right to keep and bear arms." A federal judge later disagreed with the government´s Second Amendment arguments and dismissed the case."

This case is still in litigation and is critically important. The reason it is still in litigation is because Reno appealed the dismissal on the grounds that it is a collective right. Ashcroft would have let it stand. If the appellate court rules against the individual right, then at least we have Ashcroft in place now to make it right. If the dismissal is upheld, he will let it stand as powerful case law.

The AG makes decisions regarding what to pursue and what to let to.

Posted: 5/23/2001 11:12:53 AM EDT

[#18]

Originally Posted By Liberty Ship:
This is very important stuff. From the article:

This case is still in litigation and is critically important. The reason it is still in litigation is because Reno appealed the dismissal on the grounds that it is a collective right. Ashcroft would have let it stand. If the appellate court rules against the individual right, then at least we have Ashcroft in place now to make it right. If the dismissal is upheld, he will let it stand as powerful case law.

The AG makes decisions regarding what to pursue and what to let to.

View Quote

If he does not appeal a individual right ruling then the descision would only affect the areas under the jurisdiction of the 5th circuit. It will then be a cold day in hell when another case like it will ever make it to the U.S. supreme court.

Posted: 5/23/2001 11:43:56 AM EDT

[#19]

Always so negative, Imbroglio. We can work off of this. Have faith.

Posted: 5/23/2001 12:12:31 PM EDT

[#20]

I read somewhere awhile back on this board that if the 5th circuit issues an individual right ruling, it would HAVE to go to the Supreme Court because of a conflicting ruling in another circuit court (9th?). If that's true, who would argue the case?

Posted: 5/23/2001 12:46:09 PM EDT

[#21]

Hmmmm...

[url]http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,25447,00.html[/url]

"During his confirmation, Ashcroft said he supported the right to bear arms for citizens but added, ``I don't believe the Second Amendment to be one that forbids any regulation of guns.'' He said he supports child safety locks and a ban on assault weapons."

Friend, eh?

Beware of Republicans bearing gifts.

Posted: 5/23/2001 12:57:02 PM EDT

[#22]

Ashcroft has been a longstanding staunch supporter of the Second Amendment. He's intending to study "gun violence" (sic) and I'm betting that his agenda is to reveal that all the Brady crapola, 10 rd. mag, assault weapon bans has done nothing to reduce crime and has had the only effect of driving up the price of readily available high capacity magazines.

We need a NATIONAL carry law. "If you're legal to own one, you're legal to carry." Isn't that what the Second Amendment says?

Posted: 5/23/2001 1:01:09 PM EDT

[#23]

PRAISE THE LORD WE HAVE SOMEONE WHO WILL TRY TO PROTECT OUR RIGHTS!!!!!!!!!

Posted: 5/23/2001 1:03:14 PM EDT

[#24]

So what exactly does this mean for us?

View Quote

It doesn't mean anything for us. The next attorney general could come in and say in his opinion it isn't an individual right. Only if his view gets taken to court and the Supreme Court rules that his opinion is the correct one, only then will it mean something.

Posted: 5/23/2001 1:05:53 PM EDT

[#25]

My guess is Ashcroft made that statement simply to set the tone for the DOJ. Kind of a warning to FBI, ATF, etc., that they should consider his stance before jumping all over the people. But we still really need the Supreme's to hear Miller.

Posted: 5/23/2001 1:08:31 PM EDT

[#26]

Definately a far sight better than what we saw during the Clinton regime. Hopefully it's not simply delaying the inevitable.

Augie

Posted: 5/23/2001 1:25:43 PM EDT

[#27]

If he supports a ban on assault weapons, then he does not support the second amendment. He's a POS.

Posted: 5/23/2001 1:29:37 PM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:
Walk the walk, now Ashy.

View Quote

EXACTLY.

Nuckles.

Posted: 5/23/2001 1:40:23 PM EDT

[#29]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,25447,00.html

During his confirmation, Ashcroft said he supported the right to bear arms for citizens but added, ``I don't believe the Second Amendment to be one that forbids any regulation of guns.'' [b][red][size=5]He said he supports child safety locks and a ban on assault weapons.[/size=5][/red][/b]

In the letter, Ashcroft declined to comment on the Emerson case. Justice Department officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the department does not plan to make additional arguments in the case, which is pending before a three-judge appellate panel.

Government lawyers would look at the panel's ruling before deciding whether to appeal to the Supreme Court, officials said, adding that [b][red][size=5]Ashcroft thinks the 1994 law is a reasonable restraint on Second Amendment rights.[/size=5][/red][/b]

View Quote

I hope he is only saying he supports a ban on "assault" weapons to appease the soccer moms. I would like him to define what an "assault" weapon is.

Posted: 5/23/2001 2:14:31 PM EDT

[#30]

If I remember right from when I watched his confirmation hearings, he was asked if he uphold the assault weapon ban. This is a trick question, a lose lose situation no matter how he answered. The anti-gunners asked it in an attempt to get the gun owners pissed off at Ashcroft, that way he would lose his support and not be confirmed.

The job/duty of the Attorney General is to uphold all existing laws, it's not his place to make the laws or ignore. What he was really being asked was, will you do the job you would be appointed to do.

Here is why it was a lose/lose situation.
If Ashcroft said no he would not uphold the AW ban, then the Dems would have every reason to vote against him, so would some of the Republicans, and he would have been crucified for trying to get a job he just said he wouldn't do. By Ashcroft saying he would support the AW ban, the Democrats knew that people like GovtThug would get really pissed and would hate Ashcroft and try to make sure he didn't get confirmed, which is what the anti-gunners wanted. The anti-gunners pulled the wool over a lot of peoples eyes, and I can't believe some of you are still buying into it.

Posted: 5/23/2001 2:17:51 PM EDT

[#31]

Chalk up one for us!

I hope this is the start of a long line of clinton administration gun law reversals. Will this happen, not in the first term. If his G.W.'s gun law enforcement stance bears fruit and he can claim a "safer america", then I fully expect a repeal of most of brady.

Posted: 5/23/2001 2:50:09 PM EDT

[#32]

Well, I wouldn't go so far as to say I'm pissed off. It is, after all, just business as usual in Washington.

But if he supports the AW ban, then he's no ally. And if he just said it to get confirmed, then he'll keep on saying it to avoid attacks and he's still not an ally.

I know he doesn't make the laws, but he could be a powerful advocate if he chose to be.

Posted: 5/23/2001 3:04:13 PM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:
Always so negative, Imbroglio. We can work off of this. Have faith.

View Quote

I am just fulfilling my new years resolution.

Posted: 5/23/2001 3:09:39 PM EDT

[#34]

I suggest everyone read the whole article, Ashcroft also wants to support the 20,000+ unconstitutional gun laws on the books. The right to keep and bear arms per the second ammendment is fully nullified by the plethoria of laws already in effect. If he TRULY wanted Americans to own guns - he'd work at repealing some of these asinine laws.

Posted: 5/23/2001 8:15:51 PM EDT

[#35]

My arguement here is:

How can he agree with Homer Cummings stating that the first Federal gun-control statute in 1934 was unconstitutional, then turn around and say he supports enforcing the current gun-control laws on the books?

Buyer Beware!