It's Ashcroft-Metzenbaum vs. NRA

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."

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 always wanted to join to do some good, but I had the same problem. I figured the only thing I could do is Secret Service and make sure I stay of protection detail, just get counterfeiters. I have a family member who joined the sheriff's department in a large city, and had to quit for ethical reasons.

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.

Since it's not your job to decide constitutionality, the only honorable thing to do is resign. Never forget that your constitutionality is another's unconstitutionality. What if a law came out tomorrow subjecting doctors and mothers involved in abortions to prison sentences. Many cops and prosecutors can say "That law's wrong as it violates the right..." and not enforce it.

There has to be only one official voice on that subject concerning enforcement (there is jury veto, but that's not in enforcement, that's the people speaking).

Never forget that your constitutionality is another's unconstitutionality.

I believe this is true about some laws, but not about all of them. What if there were a law that stated you could not comment in public about a candidate running for office. Can *anyone* doubt the constitutionality of such a law? Alas, in this era of lost common sense, some probably would think such a law was justifiable.

The only flaw in our form of government is that it requires a morally upstanding people to make it work.

Tuor

What if there were a law that stated you could not comment in public about a candidate running for office. Can *anyone* doubt the constitutionality of such a law?

I see your point, but that battle is not to be fought by law enforcement.

Okay, I can make exceptions. But the circumstances would have to be pretty severe and obvious, as in maybe not arresting a black man trying to vote in the Jim Crow days (not sure of the actuality of laws there, just trying to come up with an example). I don't think we're up to that level again yet.

IMO, it is a battle to be fought by every citizen of this country. My earlier point was meant to lead to such a conclusion: it is not law enforcement or lawyers who, ultimately, decide the constitutionality of any law, but the people: by following and obeying unconstitutional laws and, more importantly, by electing (or worse, re-electing) officials who are either ignorant or contemptuous of the Constitution.

I would like law enforcement officers to consider matters of constitutionality not because they are police officers, but because they are US citizens and it is their right and duty, IMO, to consider such things. Yes, we have a Supreme Court who makes official rulings on such matters. But, unfortunately, they are not unbiased, non-political, or infallible. While government seems to delight in making its workings too complex for the average citizen to understand, we should do the best we can do consider such matters regardless.

On a more pragmatic level, I doubt people have the time to devote to keep abreast of such matters, especially since the government seems to be intentionally obfuscating matters. Also, our educational system seems to leave people without the tools of logic and reason to properly evaluate the various pieces of legislation that effect their lives. I do not think this is mere happenstance, either. Education has become little more than indoctrination. The idea of freeing one's mind to make reasonable choices seems to have mostly died away: emotionalism and mindless obedience seems to be the new intended result of thirteen or more years of schooling.

Tuor

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.