Posted on 05/09/2002 12:31:23 PM PDT by EBUCK
Justice Department's legal opinion on Second Amendment is "politically schizophrenic," Libertarians say
WASHINGTON, DC -- The Justice Department's new legal opinion concerning the Second Amendment is "political schizophrenia at its worst," Libertarians say, because it asserts that individuals have a right to own a gun while pledging to enforce laws that infringe on that right.
"This ruling is very good news - and very bad news - for gun owners," said Libertarian Party Executive Director Steve Dasbach. "The good news is that the government finally recognizes that the Constitution protects individual Americans' right to own a gun. But the bad news is that laws that infringe on that right will still be enforced.
"It's as if the government has acknowledged that it has no right to step on your neck, while simultaneously refusing to remove its foot."
In a reversal of the federal government's longstanding legal position, the Bush administration told the Supreme Court this week it believes the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals - and not just state-sponsored militias like the National Guard - to own a gun. Filed by U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson, the legal brief is designed to get the Supreme Court to weigh in on the right to bear arms for the first time since 1939.
Yet the Justice Department also says it is determined "to defend vigorously the constitutionality, under the Second Amendment, of all existing federal firearms laws."
"That's why this decision is political schizophrenia at its worst," Dasbach said. "Imagine what would happen if the government grudgingly acknowledged that the First Amendment protects an individual journalist's right to free expression, then announced it would 'defend vigorously' a law requiring reporters to pass a grammar test before publishing an article.
"Americans would rightly demand the repeal of that 'speech control' law. Now it's time to stand up for the Second Amendment in the same way. If Mr. Bush sincerely believes in an individual right to bear arms, here's how he can prove it: Call for the repeal of every federal gun control law, including:"
* The Gun-Free School Zone Law, enacted in 1997, which bans the possession of a gun within 1,000 feet of a school.
"This law violates the constitutional right of every individual teacher to defend themselves and their students in the event of another Columbine-like massacre," Dasbach said. "By setting up a 1,000-foot zone in which every potential victim is unarmed and defenseless, the law is more likely to encourage another shooting spree than to prevent one."
* The Brady Bill, which set up a federal database of law-abiding gun owners.
"Innocent Americans are not forced to submit to a criminal background check and put into a government dossier because they exercised their First Amendment right to free speech or their Fourth Amendment right not to be searched illegally," Dasbach said. "It's time to stop treating individual Americans who want to buy guns as criminal suspects, and repeal the Brady Bill."
* The "Lautenberg Law," which strips Second Amendment rights from anyone convicted, even years ago, on a misdemeanor domestic violence charge.
"Individuals don't retroactively lose their First Amendment rights because they were convicted of libel or slander 10 years ago," Dasbach said. "So there's no justification for violating an individual's Second Amendment right because of a 10-year-old domestic violence conviction either."
The fact is that regardless of the government's newfound respect for the Second Amendment, Americans will not have the freedom to exercise those rights as long as gun control laws remain on the books, Dasbach said.
"Perhaps a little public outrage, combined with a healthy dose of the Constitution, can cure the Bush administration's political schizophrenia on the gun issue," he said.
Good News indeed.
I couldn't locate the complete opinion. I've got a few feelers out so if I get a hold of it I'll post it on this thread. Or perhaps somone of great skill could locate it on the DOJ site.
EBUCK
But if we got the DOJ in such a huff that their policy contradicts their legal opinion, the situation is ripe for exploitation. At least that is my take on it.
I don't think that the DOJ is going to deny enforcement based on this opinion but a good lawyer may be able to use this to beat the rap as it were.
EBUCK
BTW....On the subject of guns. I picked up a Mauser 7x57 with custom Stock and Leo. Detacho rings with about 300 handloaded rounds and boxes upon boxes of Hornady (spitzer and boat tail mixed) bullets. All for $175!! Whadyall think of that deal. Gotta love them gun shows. Anyone know how to identify the year ect. by the symbols and stamps on Mauser actions?
EBUCK
As I said on another thread: City confronts deadly 911 delay
Was the Justice Dept. statement a wink and a nod that now is the time to turn the tables?
It looks like time to challenge all these gun laws.
EBUCK
All of my weapons are unregistered. I've long felt that if I ever got into trouble over that aspect of them, I would argue those laws unconstitutionality in court, attempting to nullify the jury, if needs be. Citing this recent Justice Department brief could make that more realistic and viable.
Thanks, guys.
Yupper. Better get it done before Bush gets unseated and another Reno takes Jonny-boys seat as the AG. The time seems ripe.
OneDoug...wadnt me. Are you required by law to register ALL your firearms?
EBUCK
But yet here we are, defending the 2nd Amendment far more energetically than ANY Republican.
Hmmm. I guess we're just all too high to realize that we're defending the RTKBA.
The 2nd ammendment is something that both pubs and libtars have alway agreed on. Prolly always will too. No need to fracture over something we can agree on dontcha think? Save it for the WOD threads.
EBUCK
What they are suggesting in this press release is the executive branch not enforce laws which are on the books. All the Justice Department has to do, the LP apparently believes, is develop a new legal argument and then every law passed by congress and signed by a president can be ignored.
The feds & the states are fighting to keep their ability to 'regulate' our rights, just as much as they see fit.
This 'decision' is a sham.
I choose to take the optomistic view that Asscroft is really a #2 suppporter but you could be right here.
EBUCK
That's not very smart.
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.