Exactly which firearms are NOT suited to criminal misuse?
"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 courtneed not test that principle now. "
If not now, WHEN?
Would an appropriate time to address this be when the court is more liberal? Perhaps this court is too ready to again use a strict construction on the Second Amendment and would establish a Supreme Court precedent that it IS an individual Right!
I sincerely wish it that Bush wants to wait until he can appoint one or two truly conservative Justices before this type of case is brought before the Supremes.
"Solicitor General Olson urged the Supreme Court to turn down both appeals. He said that even accepting an individual right to bear arms, the application of the laws at issue in both cases reflected the kind of narrowly tailored restrictions by which that right could reasonably be limited. Consequently, there was no warrant for the court to take either case, the briefs said."
With all due respect to Mr. Olson, he is dead wrong on the issue and this "policy shift" is merely an attempt to deflect criticism from their position that the SCOTUS should not hear the Emerson appeal.
Having read both opinions and the brief filed to SCOTUS, the larger issue is the standard of review employed by the 5th Circuit. They went out of their way to demonstrate why the Second Amendment is a fundamental individual right - and then analyzed the offending statute using a rational basis standard. That is the wrong standard of review for a fundamental individual right. The correct standard is strict scrutiny - and 90% of the current laws will not pass that type of review.
Further, the statute makes it a crime to posess or transfer a firearm once you are subject to a protective order - the only way not to violate the statute is to divest yourself of all firearms prior to the order being issued. That means you can be summarily deprived of an individual right and subject to incarceration without due process because if you don't divest prior to a hearing and the order is issued you cannot take any action without committing a crime. (Unless you are willing to not return to your domocile until after the order expires)
Mr. Olsen is dead wrong - the appeal should be heard and the government's position on the law (unless they admit it is unconstitutional) is dead wrong.
posted on 5/7/02 2:36 PM Pacific by Abundy
I'd love to see some leadership on overturning the existing
unconstitutional gun laws, and amnesty for those convicted
of non-violent (CCW) gun crimes.