[JDoutrider]

Thank you Mr. President!

[JDoutrider]

Now if we can get him to fire minneta, and let the pilots regain their second amendment rights!

[lepton]

"IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE TENDING TO SHOW THAT POSSESSION OR USE OF A "SHOTGUN HAVING A BARREL OF LESS THAN EIGHTEEN INCHES IN LENGTH" AT THIS TIME HAS SOME REASONABLE RELATIONSHIP TO THE PRESERVATION OR EFFICIENCY OF A WELL REGULATED MILITIA, WE CANNOT SAY THAT THE SECOND AMENDMENT GUARANTEES THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR SUCH AN INSTRUMENT. CERTAINLY IT IS NOT WITHIN JUDICIAL NOTICE THAT THIS WEAPON IS ANY PART OF THE ORDINARY MILITARY EQUIPMENT OR THAT ITS USE COULD CONTRIBUTE TO THE COMMON DEFENSE."

[billybudd]

Finally, Bush scores some points.

[11B3]

Now where are all of the Bush bashers? Come on - I know you're out there - tell us how this is a bad thing. Well, it is, if you're a liberal.

[Noumenon]

Don't hold your breath waiting for the repeal of a single one of the existing unConstitutional laws restricting the individuals' right to keep and bear arms.

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!

[JulieRNR21]

FYI BUMP

[RainDog]

Ring one up from the new Gipper :)

[KS Flyover]

Link to NewsMax article:

Bush Administration Backs Individual Right to Bear Arms

[theDentist]

(Donning an asbestos suit)

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.

[RCW2001]

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.

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?

[Dog Gone]

"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,"

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.

[bybybill]

This is a little hard to believe. Bush and Powell have been bought and payed for by the Italian-Saudi mafia which knows it can`t takeover Israel and the US of A while we still got our guns. Ted Olson in on it too.I`ll bet he swiched papers on that fool,Ascroft, and he`s gonna ask the court to let in a bunch of Canadains that are secretly working with the UN to get our guns.

[Cacique]

"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."

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.

[demlosers]

wooooohooooo!

[in the Arena]

Big Bang !!!

[BushMeister]

The odd thing about that Miller decision is that it would seem to point a big neon arrow at military-style automatic rifles as something the 2nd Amendment says are OK to own, since they are exactly the type of weapon used in a militia function (instant military force from among the citizenry).

[Standing Wolf]

"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.

Leftists are to American civil rights
as the A.I.D.S. virus is to health!

[boris]

"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.'"

No. The Second Amendment has only a single comma.

--Boris 3 posted on 5/7/02 6:14 PM Pacific by boris

[Frohickey]

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.

By this ruling, the amendment must pertain to those types of arms that are currently used by the military. Military uses tanks, howitzers, cannons, missiles, grenades, rockets, full-auto machine guns, selective-fire battle rifles, bolt-action rifles, semi-automatic short-barrelled shotguns, pump-action shotguns, selective-fire submachine guns and semi-automatic pistols.

Seems to me that all of these should be available to the well-regulated militia as well (all persons between 18 and 45), or else the government is not following the Miller ruling.

[Hoosier Patriot]

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."

Unfit persons? Well, that leaves a bit of room for interpretation now doesn't it?

Suited to criminal misuse? Hmmmmm.... Sounds a bit broad also.

Don't get me wrong here, I'm happy that they've come down on the side of the 2nd being an individual right, but the devil is in the details here it seems.