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
Nope--afraid not. By your reasoning, no one over 55 (male OR female) would be allowed to own firearms. The first clause is preparatory, giving the main reason for the second clause--which is universal in application, NOT JUST TO THE MILITIA.
It was more a comment on the volume of "hog-swallow" that appears on some threads rather than any accusation towards you.
I must polish my humor.
Show me where he has enforced the law when it comes to Bill Clinton, Mark Rich et. al. Show me where he has purged the justice department of its affirmitive action proponents. Have you read the latest about the NJ state troopers? It turns out that they were wrongly accused of racial profiling. The justice department did a survey themselves which showed that blacks break traffic laws much more than whites do, on average. They DOJ then tried to block the release of the report. Where was Ashcroft? That is why Ashcroft is a disappointment.
Both Bush and his Atty Gen. are sworn to uphold the Constitution. When the Constitutionality of a law created by Congress comes into question, it is the duty of both those executives to pass judgement on the truth of the matter. Their first obligation is to defend the Constitution, not an act of Congress that falls short of full amendment. The words of the founders far outway the words of Metzenbaum and his peers, the meaning of the second article in the Bill of rights is clear and unambiguous. There is no honor in defend anything contrary to that fact. The law in question is an infringement and the constitution forbids it. The Administration is defending the infringement on a list of grounds and the Constitution forbids it regardless of grounds.
With regard to 18USC922(r). The Constitution again provides no "buts" to justify infringement. That makes a sporting purpose restriction by Congress, unconstitutional. There is also no justification for the Senate to extract a finding, or a promise, from an executive, or judicial appointee to support any particular law as constitutional. To do so diminishes the balance of Powers in the branches and compromises the integrity of anyone subject to such preversion of the advise and consent clause.
I read your homepage and I'm not demonizing the two altogether. They do need to be called on it when they make dangerous and destructive moves and transgressions against the Constitution.
There is something a bit rational about sending an ideologue to try the feds case. If the judges are themselves ideologues it wouldn't matter who Ashcroft sent. If they are not, they may send Metzenbaum home with his tail between his legs.
The bitching involves the laws that Ashcroft IS enforcing. That is where my point was focused.
Recently the MO House passed a form of Concealed Carry. Now in the State Senate. The Dem Gov. has promised to veto it. Intense pressure was brought on the House to pass this legislation. Now the Senate is facing the wrath of gun owners in MO. Some Dems are even going along with it. It cleared the House 2-1. The fight is not over yet.
Again, I do not disagree with your discussions in the least. However, reality bites. I would LOVE to be able to have the Constitution strictly adhered to. However, am I willing to replace the thumbhole stock on my SLR-95 with the traditional pistol grip (without changing the internals)? I don't think so. No desire to share long lonely nights with a stranger in a place called Leavenworth.
Stupid laws. Unconstitutional laws (IMO/and yours) but laws nonetheless. Most here disagree as to how to go about changing them, myself included. But we ALL agree on ONE thing and that is, they MUST be changed! Repealed! If "sunsetting" is the best we can hope for? Then so be it. Better than nothing.
That's why I asked you Pocat.......if I wanted some party line popular PC BS lie I would have went somewhere else for opinions.
Good on Ya Bro ! Stay safe !
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.
Then, of course, if we all had them, well, we could protect ourselves with them too. Both clauses end up with the same effective right for the people. 
I'm actually pleased by this Ashcroft on this. Many were worried that Ashcroft as the ultra-religious-conservative may choose to not support laws that conflict with his belief and politics. That he is doing his job on this law shows he is a man of character, and we need that in an attorney general.
I still hope he loses on this one though.
Wow. Bookmarking that one.
We're thinking alike. Any doubts I had about Ashcroft are starting to evaporate. He is apparently a man of his word, too rare in D.C.
His conscience would. If he actually wins this, and I hope he doesn't, there could then be no doubt that Ashcroft took his oath seriously.
All the Govt. had to do was show up in court and say it was a stupid law and they didn't like it either.
Then he would be acting like a legislator, tyring to write laws, or like the judicial, trying to determine if they are constitutional. He is acting like what he is, the part of the executive branch responsible for enforcing the laws that Congress enacts.
Maybe because that stuff's not illegal. Reprehensible maybe, but not illegal. I'm glad Ashcroft's spending his time enforcing the law -- not interpreting or legislating it.
Actually, the Second Amendment doesn't "grant" anything. It protects the right to keep and bear arms.
Carolyn
Kind of like congressional votes for cash bribes campaign donations? How much did Disney pay Hollings to present their latest copyright travesty bill? You should see some of the bills getting passed that are so specifically to the benefit of not just one industry or company, but one person. At least that pardon didn't attempt to reduce all our rights.
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.