U.S. Argues For Wider Gun Rights

The Washington Post ^ | May 8, 2002 | Edward Walsh

[Pern]

Reversing long-held government policy, the Bush administration has told the Supreme Court that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm that is not tied to the maintenance of state militias.

[Pern]

The previous thread was deleted. Whole articles from the Washington Post and LA Times are not allowed to be posted by court order.

[Pern]

Bump

[2banana]

Acknowledging that the briefs represented a shift in government policy, Olson noted that, when the two cases were argued before separate appeals courts, "the government argued that the Second Amendment protects only such acts of firearm possession as are reasonably related to the preservation or efficiency of the militia."

They do not know that EVERYONE is in the militia...

No administrations has taken the position that there is an individual right to possess a gun under the Second Amendment," said Mathew S. Nosanchuk, litigation director for the Violence Policy Center.

Paging the administration of Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe...Kennedy, Reagan. Please pick up line 1 and tell Mr. Nosanchuk that he is an ass.

[Pern]

It said the prohibition on gun ownership by someone subject to a domestic violence restraining order was such a reasonable exception, a view that Olson also endorsed in urging that the Supreme Court not to review the case.

I don't agree with this one. So if your ex gets pissed off, she can file a restraining order against you, and you would be banned for life from owning a gun? That's unacceptable.

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

I'm short on time so I may have misunderstood, but this strikes me as they are trying to avoid having the court make a ruling. This administration saying they agree that citizens have the right, but they have the power to infringe, is unsatisfactory. We need a clear ruling and no infringements.

[Pern]

We need a clear ruling and no infringements.

Absolutely. Enough of this political tug of war.

[sleavelessinseattle]

Bump...Thanks for reposting, Dragon planet.

[angkor]

I think restraining orders usually have a limited life. They are not effective in perpetutity. Also, the subject of the order usually has the chance to appeal.

Over the years I've seen two friends served with restraining orders during a divorce. In both cases these guys were absolutely not the types to engage in spousal abuse, and it seemed pretty obvious that the wives and their lawyers saw the restraining order as a tactic to obtain a more favorable settlement. They just wanted the guys out of "the wife's house."

Divorces can be dirty, ugly affairs, and the guys were just too stressed out to fight the orders in court.