Justice Dept. Reverses Policy on Meaning of Second Amendment

The fact that this argument was included may well cause the Supreme Court to grant Cretiorari(?sp). The court then has to devise reasonable regulation within the context of an individual right if they take the case and accept that it is an individual right. If the courtt then rules that the NFA is unconstitutional in regard to machineguns they would then have to rule all subsequent regulations like the so called assault weapons ban and magazine restrictions are also unconstitutional. Then the discussion will focus on the incorporation of the federal Bill of Rights to limit the states power. Probably not in these cases. I can think of three justices who will definitely vote for a reasonable interpretation of the Second Amendment. The next two I am not certain of but I would hope for O'Connor and Kennedy. Also possible are Souter and Ginsberg.

As for your desire for an MP5 it is an exellent choice but given my choice I think I would select a nice drum magazine Thompson.

Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown

61 posted on 05/07/2002 1:58:37 PM PDT by harpseal

If I can carry a concealed weapon in New York, I should be able to carry it anywhere.

More importantly, visa versa.

62 posted on 05/07/2002 2:00:03 PM PDT by Wm Bach

...forestall further such USSC judgements...

You mean like the "thousands" of cites you can't ever seem to remember?

63 posted on 05/07/2002 2:02:13 PM PDT by Roscoe

To: justshutupandtakeit

You've been lying with the states 'rights' contingent, and the gun grabbing stink has rubbed in. Learn to live with it.

64 posted on 05/07/2002 2:05:56 PM PDT by tpaine

To: hopespringseternal

So, the Justice Department's position is that the 2nd ammendment means what it says until they don't want it to.

Cute, huh? If the same "limitations" exist after this statement of policy as existed before, just where is the up-side?

65 posted on 05/07/2002 2:08:52 PM PDT by Trailerpark Badass

To: GeneD; all; tpaine; roscoe; justshutupandtakeit; *bang_list; one_particular_harbour;

Solicitor General Olson urged the Supreme Court to turn down both appeals. He said that even accepting an individual right to bear arms, the application of the laws at issue in both cases reflected the kind of narrowly tailored restrictions by which that right could reasonably be limited. Consequently, there was no warrant for the court to take either case, the briefs said.

With all due respect to Mr. Olson, he is dead wrong on the issue and this "policy shift" is merely an attempt to deflect criticism from their position that the SCOTUS should not hear the Emerson appeal.

Having read both opinions and the brief filed to SCOTUS, the larger issue is the standard of review employed by the 5th Circuit. They went out of their way to demonstrate why the Second Amendment is a fundamental individual right - and then analyzed the offending statute using a rational basis standard. That is the wrong standard of review for a fundamental individual right. The correct standard is strict scrutiny - and 90% of the current laws will not pass that type of review.

Further, the statute makes it a crime to posess or transfer a firearm once you are subject to a protective order - the only way not to violate the statute is to divest yourself of all firearms prior to the order being issued. That means you can be summarily deprived of an individual right and subject to incarceration without due process because if you don't divest prior to a hearing and the order is issued you cannot take any action without committing a crime. (Unless you are willing to not return to your domocile until after the order expires)

Mr. Olsen is dead wrong - the appeal should be heard and the government's position on the law (unless they admit it is unconstitutional) is dead wrong.

66 posted on 05/07/2002 2:09:15 PM PDT by Abundy

#66...the "shift" is a baby step in the right direction...but Mr. Olsen missed the ball...

67 posted on 05/07/2002 2:10:48 PM PDT by Abundy

Your 'cite' obsession is showing again roscoe, -- inanely, I might add.

68 posted on 05/07/2002 2:11:01 PM PDT by tpaine

Do you get the feeling that the wrong guy is president?

69 posted on 05/07/2002 2:12:01 PM PDT by Righty1

70 posted on 05/07/2002 2:14:02 PM PDT by Roscoe

Envy? Hardly roscoe, -- I don't wanna see yours , - and you sure as hell aint gonna see mine.

I told ya before, -- 'cite' games are for weirdos like you.

71 posted on 05/07/2002 2:23:32 PM PDT by tpaine

I don't wanna see..

I know.

72 posted on 05/07/2002 2:37:45 PM PDT by Roscoe

Already did...see #66.

74 posted on 05/07/2002 2:44:16 PM PDT by Abundy

Thats it. I'll never vote for Bush again.

75 posted on 05/07/2002 2:45:20 PM PDT by VRWC_minion

So they were WRONG all that time? What other things have they been WRONG on? /rhetorical

76 posted on 05/07/2002 2:45:45 PM PDT by AMERIKA

Already did. -- See 60

77 posted on 05/07/2002 2:46:29 PM PDT by tpaine

Opps. Wrong thread. Never mind.

78 posted on 05/07/2002 2:46:44 PM PDT by VRWC_minion

To: Cyrano; Tennessee Bob; Free_Trapper; Crowcreek; Abundy; Gianni; Gun142; Son of Rooster; dorben...

PING for pro second amendment news!!!!

79 posted on 05/07/2002 2:50:03 PM PDT by Terriergal

Thanks...check post #66.

80 posted on 05/07/2002 2:51:23 PM PDT by Abundy

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794