It's Ashcroft-Metzenbaum vs. NRA

The Plain Dealer - Cleaveland.com ^ | 04/20/2002 | Bill Sloat

[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."

[Wonder Warthog]

"It doesn't matter. If the just militia age people had guns, the purpose of keeping us free would be accomplished. And, if all those folks could have guns, it wouldn't matter to the statists that inevitably percolate into the bureauocracy if all the other's had them also. You can't get a river much wetter than it already is."

Well, it matters to me, 'cause I pass 55 next year. And you KNOW that the gun-grabbers will use ANY excuse to limit gun ownership. I can just see it now---HCI--"No one over 55 should be allowed to own firearms. Everyone KNOWS that eyesight and reflexes deteriorate with age. Why that old f*rt might shoot at someone and accidentally hit someone else."

As to the clauses of the Second Amendment--a better way to state it is that EVERY CITIZEN has the RKBA (second clause) SO THAT the government may have ready access to a body of individuals with firearms training and experience to defend the security of the nation (first clause).

[ctdonath2]

Keep in mind that when the 2nd Amendment was passed, there was no age limit or other restrictive definition of what "militia" meant. Surely the authors meant the word in an inclusive fashion, not for exclusive purposes.

[William Terrell]

As to the clauses of the Second Amendment--a better way to state it is that EVERY CITIZEN has the RKBA (second clause) SO THAT the government may have ready access to a body of individuals with firearms training and experience to defend the security of the nation (first clause).

Ok. That leaves open the right to use them to protect ourselves. We can keep and bear them only at the instance of the government and in it's service, but we can't use them to defend ourselves against a personal assault. Like a car: we can have one but can't use it unless the state licenses us. It's dangerous to rely on a military base for the right.

Both clauses mean that the citizens will keep and bear arms when they feel like it and for their own purposes. One clause says that and the other leads to that inescapable conclusion. Therfore they mean the same thing.

[Kevin Curry]

The AW ban wil not be allowed to expire. Not now, not ever.

Unfortunately, I believe you are right. This is one of those devolutions--like gays in the military--that irreversibly ratches toward liberalism and nanny state decadence. The sheep are too easily frightened into giving up fundamental rights in the name of security, and too easily shamed into embracing immorality in the name of political correctness.

As a practical matter, Bush is powerless to reverse these things.

[kitchen]

Cache is king.

Good one!

In an unstable market, protect your assets. Capital diversification - including 1911, M14, and 870 - will prove to be a wise investment strategy.

[Tuor]

I would suggest that AG Ashcroft is doing his job, and probably following orders from above. Again, he swore to do the job.

He swore, I believe, to uphold the Constitution. Any law which restricts the right of the People to keep and bear arms is unconstitutional. Thus, Ashcroft is *not* doing his job as US A-G.

Did you also give Bush a pass when he signed the blatantly unconstitutional campaign reform bill, you know, the one that curtails free speech near elections?

Tuor

[no-s]

Hey man, quit reposting the synopsis and get with the novel!

[Tuor]

Many were worried that Ashcroft as the ultra-religious-conservative may choose to not support laws that conflict with his belief and politics.

In my opinion, there are two major types of laws: constitutional laws and unconstitutional laws.

It is possible, and in fact frequent, for a law to be 'bad' -- ill-advised, overly optimistic, poorly worded, etc -- and yet not violate the limitations set forth in the Constitution. In this case, I would agree that the A-G is bound to uphold such laws to the best of his ability, even if he knows they are badly written.

If, on the other hand, a law is made which is clearly unconstitutional, then, as he has taken an oath to uphold and protect the Constitution, he should *not* support such a law. For this to occur, IMO, the law would have to be very clearly unconstitutional -- such as a law restricting something that is specifically stated may not be restricted (free speech, arms).

There are many bad laws out there that I think should be repealed, but I would expect the A-G to uphold them. But I expect that *no* public servant who has sworn to uphold the Constitution to enforce, allow, or tolerate any law or act which violates the Constitution. That, IMO, is the whole point and purpose for having them *swear* an oath in the first place.

Tuor

[Lazamataz]

Asscroft is fighting FOR the AW ban????

Screw it. I give up. I guess I will just have to be a felon. And they will need to shoot me to get the hardware.

[Lazamataz]

The AW ban wil not be allowed to expire. Not now, not ever.

Then look for a successful Hillary Clinton presidential run in 2004.

[Poohbah]

Who said he'd fight effectively for the AW ban? :o)

Strategery, Laz.

[El Sordo]

It could happen. If W hasn't learned from his father's mistakes, mishandling this issue could seriously contribute to alienating his base.

[Copernicus]

In the post 9/11 world just tell Ashcroft there are no longer any "Assault Weapons".

They have all been converted to "Homeland Security" Rifles.

Best regards,

[Quila]

But I expect that *no* public servant who has sworn to uphold the Constitution to enforce, allow, or tolerate any law or act which violates the Constitution.

Constitutionality is for the judicial branch to decide, not the executive. If your view held, police would flat-out stop arresting people for drug possession. There would pretty much be chaos and most laws would fall due to selective enforcement.

If Ashcroft wants to determine constitutionality, let him get a judgeship; otherwise, he's doing his job enforcing the laws that the legislative passed and the executive signed.

[Tuor]

This is true. This is also the reason why I will never be a cop, even though cops have told me I should apply to the acadamy: I don't approve of many of the laws I would be forced to enforce. I couldn't stand the conflict that would generate.

I think that everyone has the responsibility to consider the constitutionality of laws. Some laws are just *blatantly* unconsitutional.

I seem to recall that certain 'bad' laws are...not enforced. They're on the books, but no one ever bothers to enforce it.

It seems to me that if you swore an oath to uphold and defend the constitution, and you were tasked with enforcing a law that violated the constitution, then either your oath would require you to rectify the situation or you should remove yourself from office. The one thing your oath would not allow you to do would be to enforce an unconstitutional law.

You don't need judges to tell you a law that restricts guns is contrary to the amendment that says no such laws may be made. I can't see how anything can be more stark than that.

"I was just following orders" is not an excuse to violate one's oath or the Constitution.

Tuor

[Wonder Warthog]

"Ok. That leaves open the right to use them to protect ourselves. We can keep and bear them only at the instance of the government and in it's service, but we can't use them to defend ourselves against a personal assault. Like a car: we can have one but can't use it unless the state licenses us. It's dangerous to rely on a military base for the right."

STILL wrong. The first clause gives the reason GOVERNMENT wants the citizens to have the RKBA, it in no way LIMITS the second clause. The other potential lawful uses of fireams are NOT affected. If you look at the STATE Bills of Rights from the same period as the Constitution was established, one of them (I "think" Pennsylvania) puts it "shall have the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and his own State, and the taking of game". The ORIGINAL interpretation of ALL the amendments was broad, not restrictive. In fact, the Federalists argued that the Bill of Rights wasn't even necessary, as government was limited ONLY to those things specified in the un-amended Constitution. As usual, the Federalists were wrong and the Anti-Federalists were right (the B of R was passed to satisfy the Anti-Federalists reservations).

[Wonder Warthog]

"Keep in mind that when the 2nd Amendment was passed, there was no age limit or other restrictive definition of what "militia" meant. Surely the authors meant the word in an inclusive fashion, not for exclusive purposes."

The "Militia Act" which establishes that age range was passed in 1799, contemporaneous (more or less) with the Constitution. See my response to William Terrell in reply 116 for the reason the age limit does NOT apply.

[Jesse]

If W hasn't learned from his father's mistakes, mishandling this issue could seriously contribute to alienating his base.

Bush has already alienated his base. Read between the lines of all the articles coming out the last few weeks trying to convince conservatives that W really is one of them, and not a liberal in Reagan's clothing. Isn't working...Bush already proved he will happily sign unconstitutional legislation that violates the First Amendment; he could care less about the Second.

Any of the Bushbots out there care to cite what blatantly unconstitutional legislation Clinton signed into law? I can't remember any. (The feds taking over the running of everything as a matter of course doesn't count).

[William Terrell]

I think you misunstood me. Maybe it's my lack in writing no more than a simple statement. I understand all of what you say and have been through its logic and reasoning, and I have no doubt that the first clause is the reasoning for the second clause. I have made those same arguments at one time, myself and still do. Then it occured to me that an additional argument can be made, one that I hadn't heard anyone make.

The additional argument can be used against those who say that the first clause only covers militias organized and "regulated" by the state, not individuals, in spite of all the state supreme court rulings that that amendment covers individual use of firearms for protection. I've used it effectively recently, and it does tend to shut the oposition down, when thay get on the military base for the amendment which they will use like a mantra. This argument gets past that quite efficiently. You can use it yourself or not.

You're preaching to the choir.

[Johnny Crab]

Agreed.

To quote a-human-right.com:

"The 2nd Amendment is not about hunting deer, it is about stopping thugs from hunting your family."

Yes we see the ghosts-of-hitler-in-the-camouflage..FECAL MATTER = assault rifles with combat hardware were not needed by hunters and sportsmen ...

Sounds harmless until one considers this FACT as noted on a-human-right.com:

In general, rifles which are similar to military designs are best choices for all-around use. Those tend to be robust, reliable, relatively accurate and use commonly available ammunition and magazines. Surplus ammunition is often available for a fraction of the cost of commercially produced cartridges. Similarly, a 30-round magazine of a common design may cost less than a 4-round magazine of a less common type. .