Posted on 05/07/2002 5:44:52 PM PDT by JDoutrider
Tuesday, May 7, 2002 Bush Administration Backs Individual Right to Bear Arms
Reversing the four-decade-long federal interpretation of the Second Amendment, the Bush administration has told the Supreme Court that it believes the Constitution protects an individual's right to bear arms.
Lawyers for the Department of Justice said the high court need not test that principle now.
"The current position of the United States ... is that the Second Amendment more broadly protects the rights of individuals, including persons who are not members of any militia or engaged in active military service or training, to possess and bear their own firearms," Solicitor General Theodore Olson wrote in two court filings this week.
That right, however, is "subject to reasonable restrictions designed to prevent possession by unfit persons or to restrict the possession of types of firearms that are particularly suited to criminal misuse."
Olson, the administration's top Supreme Court lawyer, was reflecting the view of Attorney General John Ashcroft that the Second Amendment applies to private citizens, not merely to militias, the Associated Press reported today.
Ashcroft angered anti-gun-rights leftists when he expressed a similar statement in a letter to the National Rifle Association last year.
'Plain Meaning and Original Intent'
"While some have argued that the Second Amendment guarantees only a 'collective' right of the states to maintain militias, I believe the amendment's plain meaning and original intent prove otherwise," Ashcroft wrote.
In November, the attorney general sent a letter to federal prosecutors praising an appeals court decision that found "the Second Amendment does protect individual rights," but noting that those rights could be subject to "limited, narrowly tailored specific exceptions."
The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of appeals went on to reject arguments from Texas physician Timothy Emerson that a 1994 federal gun law was unconstitutional. The law was intended to deny guns to people under restraining orders.
"In my view, the Emerson opinion, and the balance is strikes, generally reflect the correct understanding of the Second Amendment," Ashcroft told prosecutors.
Olson's court filing Monday urged the high court not to get involved and acknowledged the policy change in a lengthy footnote. Olson attached Ashcroft's letter to prosecutors.
In the second case, a man was convicted of owning two machine guns in violation of federal law. The government also won a lower-court decision endorsing a federal gun control law.
The cases are Emerson vs. United States, 01-8780 and Haney vs. United States, 01-8272.
Here is the text of the Second Amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The Supreme Court last ruled on the scope of the Second Amendment in 1939, according to AP. The amendment protects only those rights that have "some reasonable relationship to the preservation of efficiency of a well regulated militia," the court opined then.
"This action is proof positive that the worst fears about Attorney General Ashcroft have come true – his extreme ideology on guns has now become government policy," fumed Michael D. Barnes, president of Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, the anti-gun-rights group associated with famous gun buyer Sarah Brady.
Don't even think about all of those who are now serving jail sentences under the auspices of those same unConstitutional laws.
And let's not lose any sleep over those who've been shot down in their own homes by adrenaline-pumped black-suited ninjas in the course of enforcing those same unConstitutional laws.
Whoopee! Let's all celebrate, clap and cheer another great performance by the Potemkin Village People!
I'm sorry to douse some water on your celebratory fireworks, but the President swore up and down that he would NEVER sign the Shays-Meehan CFR bill. No changes were made to the bill, but he signed it anyway.
I suggest you act as though the President is "iffy" in any bills reaching his desk, no matter his previous pronouncements.
Nonetheless, I still prefer him to Algore.
Their reluctance to take this all through the Supreme Court is troublesome, however??? Do they think they don't have the votes on the court to uphold the 2nd or do they not want the it 'set in stone' by the Court?
Yep.
And here's the interesting thing. The Federal Government in the past has been afraid to let a case get to the Supreme Court because it knows that a ruling like that would open a can of worms for the gun control crowd.
This Administration isn't afraid of that ruling.
What the hell does that mean? More double talk. I could dirve a truck through that loophole. There is nothing in the second amendment about reasonable restrictions. Who determines the restrictions? Are we saying we will allow only toy guns? OPPS, wait that can be subject to criminal misuse as well. These idiots better go back to school. We're being taken for a ride again and what's worse is it's by our own side.
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.