Posted on 04/30/2002 12:11:21 AM PDT by Mini-14
It's Ashcroft-Metzenbaum vs. NRA 04/20/02Bill Sloat 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."
Plain Dealer Reporter
Cincinnati
Oh, but I _DO_ realize that. I fully expect him to present a full-assed case - I just expect him to void and wipe before presenting the case, unlike AWB supporters.
Ashcroft MUST present the best legitimate legal case he can, and must cover all the arguments that Metzenbaum (sp?) & Co. would present, else they will scream that he short-changed the case. HOWEVER, if he presents that side's arguments CLEARLY, as based in law, the pro-AWB case cannot stand and will be shown ludicrous. This is in contrast to having a real anti-RKBA believer stand and fling obfuscating rationalizations which, while rebuttable, cannot be analyzed and vanquished in the time allotted.
Remember: we're in this AWB mess because the opposition succesfully spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt, while we spent the whole time trying to clean up the mess they were making. Reno (or the like) would just continue the FUD in the courtroom with a remarkable chance of success; Ashcroft cannot/willnot make a FUD defense, and is limited to plainly showing the legal house of cards making up the AWB.
It will be kept alive by administrative fiat.
Stay wel - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown
The plaintiffs in this court case. Further dissemination is irrelevant at this level.
I don't see the Feds giving up this power.
I don't see the current Feds keeping this power regardless. This administration is incapable of producing the kind of FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt) via rabid obfuscations necessary to fight the legal facts involved in this case.
My question exposed my ignorance. I went back and re-read the article and have a better understanding of the proceedings. I'm going to cross my fingers and hope for the best (ignoring that nagging doubt). Thanks for the polite "education".
Again, I disagree. A man of principal will not run away from an oportunity to do good in other areas, where he may be forced to enforce current laws, even though he disagrees with them.
Mark
LOL!! Are you insane? It will be even more vocal than the original bill being signed, because GW will re-sign it. Anyone who thinks he wont is out of their minds. The government NEVER gives back something they have stolen. No president will ever let this sunshine. The AW ban just gives them too much power.
A).Ashcroft took an oath as AG to uphold the law-ALL laws. Like it or not. Guess many here aren't use to having an AG that doesn't pick and choose the laws he/she wants to enforce. So unlike Janet Sterno.
B).Ashcroft first AG to interpret the Second Amendment as and INDIVIDUAL right as opposed to a COLLECTIVE right in many years. Remember how Corporal Klinton's Solicitor Gen. argued otherwise? Ashcroft has so instructed his 93 Fed. DAs accordingly.
C).Although unrelated to RKBA, when Ashcroft was Gov. of Missouri, our state was ranked 48th in TOTAL tax burden. After 3 years of Carnahan and the Democrats, we rose to EIGHTEENTH! Right up there with Kali, Mass, NY,etc.
D)As for NRA? They are already confronting pols on their views of letting the AW Ban "sunset." Posted on nraila.org or gomemphis.com as well as most of the gun boards.
If you long for the days of Rambo Reno? I'll see you on the beach...
Looks like the NRA frauds are getting what they asked for --"Enforcing the laws we have". Hope CFR helps.
http://www.gunowners.org
He shoulda stayed in the Senate and done all his 'good works' there.....oh, that's right.....he let a dead man beat him.....I forgot. Oops.....oh well.....hows about he just goes back home and bes a citizen living under all the rules and regs he helped formulate as one of the elites?
Ashcroft also swore an oath to uphold the Constitution, and has publicly stated that he believes in an individual right to KABA. Was he lying then or is he lying now?
Don't forget that Ashcroft is also continuing the prosecution of the Emerson case, with the same clinton appointed attack dogs who originally said that citizens have no "right" whatsoever to keep and bear arms.
They can't use the USvMiller argument here, as "Assault rifles" have demonstrated their usefullness and their intended purpose, the defense of the country.
We have to work together to increase our numbers. The NRA should have 8 million members which is ten per cent of the American gunowners. There is no reason why the SAS can't increase their numbers among the women shooter to 2 million. The GOA should have at least half the members of the NRA without trying to gut the NRA to expand.
The AW ban will only sunset if we have the votes to do so. It won't happen if we fight among ourselves.
Will the Moose make a cameo appearance?
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.