Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
User Panel

Site Notices
Posted: 7/11/2001 6:32:36 PM EDT

Ashcroft said the Second Amendment did not prohibit Congress from enacting laws restricting firearms ownership for ``compelling state interests.''

How can this possibly be.  The right protected by the Second have never been in question.  The receiver of the right(people or state) has been the question (for *them*).
Now Ashcroft seems to be doing the Constitution and the RKBA movement a favor.  But, To me he is diluting the Constitution.
This statement of his is akin to saying, yes the 1st does protect your right to free speech.  However, you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater.  NOW PLEASE PUT ON THIS GAG.

david
Link Posted: 7/11/2001 7:39:31 PM EDT
[#1]
See the other thread about Ashcroft.  "Compelling government interest" is the most stringent standard of review there is under constitutional law.  "Compelling government interest" might keep Charles Manson from having the right to own a firearm, but it won't do much else.  This is a good thing.
Close Join Our Mail List to Stay Up To Date! 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.


By signing up you agree to our User Agreement. *Must have a registered ARFCOM account to win.
Top Top