| TOPICS | ||||||
 |
||||||
|
||||||
|
|||||||||||||
 |
|
|
| Press Release |
 |
|
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: May 8, 2002 SCHUMER CRITICIZES NEW DOJ DECISION TO CHANGE CONSTITUTIONAL DEFINITION OF GUN OWNERS Schumer: Ashcroft Decision Betrays Promise "To Follow Letter of the Law" Made During His Controversial Confirmation Hearings Changing Definition of 2nd Amendment Could Undermine State, Local Gun Laws, End Vital Legal Protections That Reduced Gun Violence, Crime US Senator Chuck Schumer today criticized the Justice Department's sudden change of interpretation of the Second Amendment, after decades of long-held policy. For over sixty years, the Justice Department has interpreted the Second Amendment as applying to those with a reasonable relationship to a well regulated militia. Now, in a stunning reversal of long-held policy, the Justice Department has argued before the Supreme Court that the Constitution broadly protects the rights of individuals to own firearms. Schumer made the following statement at a press conference today: "Yesterday, the Justice Department used footnotes in two Supreme Court briefs to announce a massive change of course in our nation's gun control policy. For the first time in 60 years, the federal government is saying that the right to bear arms is an individual right. "This decision wasn't made after discussion, debate, and open dialogue. It wasn't made in consultation with Congress and the states. And it wasn't put forward with the kind of detail and analysis that such a significant policy shift would usually come with. Instead, it was done undercover, buried in footnotes. "The broad principle that there is an individual right to bear arms is shared by many Americans, including myself. I'm of the view that you can't take a broad approach to other rights, such as First Amendment rights, and then interpret the Second Amendment so narrowly that it could fit in a thimble. "But I'm also of the view that there are limits on those rights. Just as you can't falsely shout fire in a crowded movie theater, you can put restrictions on who can own guns and how, when, and where they may be possessed. "At his confirmation hearings, Attorney General Ashcroft swore to enforce and defend all existing federal gun laws. He said, ‘I understand that being Attorney General means enforcing the law as they are written, not enforcing my personal preferences.' "He also said, ‘I believe that there are constitutional inhibitions on the rights of citizens to bear certain kinds of arms, and some of those I would think good judgment -- some of those I would think bad judgment. But as attorney general it is not my judgment to make that kind of call. My judgment, my responsibility, is to uphold the acts of the legislative branch of this government in that arena, and I would do so and continue to do so in regard to the cases that now exist, and further enactments of the Congress.' "The case that now exists is the United States v. Miller from 1939. In that case, the Supreme Court said that the Second Amendment protects only those rights that have some reasonable relationship to the preservation of efficiency of a well regulated militia. "During his confirmation hearings, John Ashcroft made it abundantly clear that he would enforce the law as it is written, not as he'd like it to be. What happened to that pledge? It's hard to look his actions and not question whether he's going back on his word. "The vote to confirm John Ashcroft's nomination was close, both in committee and in the Senate. Many members of my party who voted to confirm him based their decision on his commitment to follow the letter of the law. I wonder how they feel right now. I wonder if this is what they had in mind. "Is the federal ban on assault weapons a reasonable restriction? Is the federal ban on felons owning firearms a reasonable restriction? "We should know where Attorney General Ashcroft is on these questions but we don't. And we don't know precisely because this was done undercover of darkness, and not through an open process. "The impact of this policy change is startling. Has the Justice Department considered how state laws will be impacted? Is Maryland's 7-day waiting period unconstitutional? How about California's ban on Saturday night specials? "The District of Columbia, a city that was once not only the nation's capital, but the nation's murder capital, has one of the strictest gun laws in the country. DOJ's reversal raises questions about how federal prosecutors operating in the District will use this interpretation in prosecuting gun crimes.. "As for New York, we require strict licensing and registration of handguns. And for good reason. States and local communities need to be able to pass gun laws that deal with their own particular issues. What works in one part of the country isn't going to work in another. "Even within New York State we have different laws because what works in Onondaga County won't necessarily fly in Brooklyn. "Not to put too fine a point on it, but if New York City had Arizona's gun laws, Times Square would look like the OK Corral. And that's not OK. "So I'm calling on the Department of Justice to fill in the details on this proposal. I am sending a letter today to Attorney General Ashcroft, asking him to explain the rationale for this policy change and the reasons it was not publicly vetted and discussed with Congress. "I am also asking him to provide an analysis of the federal, state, and local gun laws that DOJ believes will be affected by this new interpretation of the Second Amendment. "When it comes to guns, this is the biggest shift in policy we've seen in decades. It could undermine hundreds of state and local laws that have drastically reduced gun violence and saved countless lives. # # # |
