Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

It's Ashcroft-Metzenbaum vs. NRA
The Plain Dealer - Cleaveland.com ^ | 04/20/2002 | Bill Sloat

Posted on 04/30/2002 12:11:21 AM PDT by Mini-14

It's Ashcroft-Metzenbaum vs. NRA

04/20/02Bill Sloat
Plain Dealer Reporter
Cincinnati

A blistering battle over gun control, set for a showdown in a federal courtroom in Ohio next week, has created one of the oddest alliances in American history.

The Justice Department of U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft, a life member of the National Rifle Association, has quietly enlisted a lifelong enemy of the gun lobby, retired Sen. Howard Metzenbaum, in the government's fight against assault weapons. So quietly, in fact, that Metzenbaum didn't even know about it.

"Wow! Never in a million years would I expect this to happen," Metzenbaum, 84, said when he learned that Ashcroft's assistants had pored over his Senate record to buttress legal arguments for a brief aimed at preserving a federal law that restricts access to the guns.

"I guess this goes to prove the old adage: If you live long enough, you might see anything."

Metzenbaum, who retired eight years ago, is an unabashed liberal Democrat from Cleveland. While in office, he was detested by Republican conservatives in Ohio and across the nation.

Ashcroft got his position in the Bush administration by being one of the nation's most visible conservatives - the anti-Metzenbaum.

But through twists they never could have imagined, the ideological foes have wound up on the same side in a landmark case that could alter the national gun-control debate. Their opponent in the lawsuit is Ashcroft's ally, the NRA.

On Tuesday, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will hear arguments over whether an assault-weapons ban imposed by the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 violates the Constitution.

"The outcome of this case will significantly affect the future safety of the public and law-enforcement officers," says Richard Rosen, a Washington lawyer who represents the 14 outside groups, including 10 national law-enforcement agencies, that are supporting the ban.

Metzenbaum was one of the chief sponsors of the ban, which concluded that the net effect of military features on some semiautomatic rifles made them a menace to society and made them especially useful to drug dealers and violent gangs.

He argued that assault rifles with combat hardware were not needed by hunters and sportsmen. Foes have argued ever since that some assault rifles are still on the market, while others nearly identical are banned. They say the law has created an irrational situation.

But the Justice Department says the ban should stand. And as attorney general, Ashcroft has to enforce and defend existing laws, even those that he might disagree with.

Ashcroft fashioned his political career opposing virtually all gun-control legislation, including the ban on the sale of assault weapons. Two years ago, when Ashcroft ran for re-election to the Senate and lost, the NRA spent more than $300,000 on his behalf in Missouri.

Jim Warner, an NRA lawyer representing two gun manufacturers and two gun dealers in the Cincinnati lawsuit, said he, too, was surprised to find Metzenbaum's denunciations of guns sprinkled through the government's court filings.

"I guess they have to go every possible source to give themselves cover. If you don't have the law on your side, you have to go with what you've got," Warner said. Justice Department lawyers could not be reached for comment.

Unlike most gun-control cases, the one headed to court Tuesday is not focused on the Second Amendment, which contains the clause granting Americans the right to bear arms. Instead, the dispute involves the First Amendment, with the manufacturers saying Congress trampled free speech by enacting a list of names of guns that could not be sold in the United States.

"So if the law protects some and bans others, we say there is no rational basis for that," Warner said. "If you control what a manufacturer names a product, that infringes on free speech."

The Justice Department argues that was not the intent of Congress. It says the guns listed by name were those that were traced most frequently to criminals.

Metzenbaum's Senate remarks were quoted to back that up. In one speech, he pointed out that an imported gun banned during Ronald Reagan's administration popped up under a new name when it was built in America.

"After [ATF] banned the importation of a South African riot-control shotgun called the Striker 12 in 1986, American manufacturers subsequently marketed a copy, which they renamed the Street Sweeper, boasting that it was barred from importation," Metzenbaum said.

The former senator isn't involved in the current battle, but there's no doubt where his sentiments lie. "I don't know that I agree with the NRA at all on anything," he said. "I have no reservations about the constitutionality of trying to limit access to guns."


TOPICS: Extended News; Government
KEYWORDS: 2ndamendment; ashcroft; banglist; espionagelist; firearms; freetrade; geopolitics; govwatch; guncontrol; guns; metzenbaum; nra; nwo; wodlist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-124 next last

1 posted on 04/30/2002 12:11:21 AM PDT by Mini-14
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Mini-14
I find it illuminating that Cincinnait OHIO is reporting the largest exodus to the Kentucky side of the Ohio River. Ohio has Draconian Concealed Weapons prohibitions and a crime rate to prove it...not to mention a chronic race riot problem...Way to go Howard Metzenbaum...what a Legacy!!!
2 posted on 04/30/2002 1:01:48 AM PDT by sleavelessinseattle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #3 Removed by Moderator

Comment #4 Removed by Moderator

To: Mini-14
Why bring this up now? The AW ban will quietly expire in less than 2 1/2 years. I don't like this at all.
5 posted on 05/01/2002 6:24:08 AM PDT by Blood of Tyrants
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mini-14
the Second Amendment, which contains the clause granting Americans the right to bear arms

Who is this idiot? It's not a 'clause', it's the expressed meaning of the amendment.

6 posted on 05/01/2002 6:31:07 AM PDT by asformeandformyhouse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: asformeandformyhouse
Who is this idiot? It's not a 'clause', it's the expressed meaning of the amendment.

Both clauses of the 2nd amendment separately mean exactly the same thing.

7 posted on 05/01/2002 6:44:02 AM PDT by William Terrell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: William Terrell
You might enjoy this:

The Wording of the 2nd Amendment.

8 posted on 05/01/2002 6:49:44 AM PDT by asformeandformyhouse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Mini-14
Ashcroft has sure turned out to be a disappointment.
9 posted on 05/01/2002 6:52:21 AM PDT by Rodney King
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #10 Removed by Moderator

Comment #11 Removed by Moderator

Comment #12 Removed by Moderator

To: Mini-14
Let's see, the NRA gets Bush elected and Bush turns around and hires Anti-gun Senators to attack the NRA and its supporters in court. Every day Bush appears to be the liberal Keyes and Buchanan said he was.
13 posted on 05/01/2002 7:03:14 AM PDT by Kobyashi1942
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mini-14
The only silver lining I could see, is that this old coot will botch his arguement and end up losing. Man, I know I'm grabbing at straws.
14 posted on 05/01/2002 7:08:46 AM PDT by stevio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #15 Removed by Moderator

To: MRAR15Guy56
John 'Benedict Arnold' Ashcroft. Pro-Second Amendment my a@@. Sure glad GORE didn't win. Congratulations, ssssuuuuccckkkkerrrrssss

I disagree... I've followed John Ashcroft's career for many years, and I know that he's a man of very strong convictions. As he plainly stated during the "lynchings" that were his confirmation hearings, he would uphold laws that he personally disagreed with. He's doing his job, something that the DemonRATs could never fathom. Imagine, actually doing something that you've sworn you would, as opposed to trying to figure out ways around it. I would suggest that AG Ashcroft is doing his job, and probably following orders from above. Again, he swore to do the job.

Mark

16 posted on 05/01/2002 7:19:12 AM PDT by MarkL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: infowars ; ChareltonHest ; Harpseal ; Pocat ; SLB
Albeit I agree we're surrounded with RINO's I think if I wanted to present to an anti-gun lobby that I really tried to defeat the pro-constitutional RKBA effort. I would also use "their" champions previously loosing efforts and methods to ensure the 2nd amendment survived......and I still kissed @ss for votes from the gun grabbers as only a good little polidiot can.

Just a different way to approach this maybe ? Yes/No ? Comment s ??

Ya'll Stay Safe !

17 posted on 05/01/2002 7:56:02 AM PDT by Squantos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants
As we all know, this "debate"/litigation is over the State's power to control through regulation. Citizens have only the rights the government says they have, not the rights of our Constitution which limits powers of the State. We live "under penalty of law" while politicians act as though they are not temporary.

Ah, the Black Rifle. Once you go black, you never go back.

BLOAT. Cache is king.

18 posted on 05/01/2002 8:06:50 AM PDT by SevenDaysInMay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: stevio
Break that straw with the little fact that the NRA lawyer apparently not knowing why they went to the Senate records of events regarding the legislation with which Metzenbaum was involved, and there could be real trouble here.

A visit to the thomas.loc.gov website and a little reading will reveal that the Courts look to the records of the various houses of Congress to help determine what it was the legislators intent with regards to the legislation in question.

19 posted on 05/01/2002 8:27:02 AM PDT by Rowdee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: MarkL
Of course, if he had strong convictions, he'd not have taken the job because he would have know issues like this and abortion would be on the burners during his tenure.
20 posted on 05/01/2002 8:29:02 AM PDT by Rowdee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-124 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson