Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Dan from Michigan
Why wouldn't Ashcroft want a strong 2A case to get to the Supreme Court, and get a concrete ruling? He's pro-gun isn't he?

But if the Supreme Court doesn't take a Second Amendment case, then a future Administration could change the interpretation of the Second Amendment again.

Or the same Administration. If they can flop one way, they can flop back.

I don't see the activities governmentward being too positive. I keep thinking about the JPFO article about the coming collapse of the ss/welfare system, and the desparate need of the government to disarm the citizens before that happens.

10 posted on 05/10/2002 10:47:03 PM PDT by William Terrell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: William Terrell
"Or the same Administration. If they can flop one way, they can flop back."

Doubt that. Dubya may be too dumb to know - but, if he is, his advisers aren't. Given both the famous Red-vs.-Blue county-by-county voting map of 2000 and his margins in many states he won, he cannot afford to lose even one county in 2004. That means he cannot afford to alienate even a few of us into just not voting. (It also means that the GOP is totally dependent on us for the 2002, 2004, 2006, and 2008 congressional elections - just as the Democreeps are on the NEA.)

Scandals of antigun politicians - coast to coast

11 posted on 05/10/2002 11:29:07 PM PDT by glc1173@aol.com
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

To: William Terrell
We still need the question answered. (It boils down to this: Are we still America?)
12 posted on 05/11/2002 4:34:42 AM PDT by Maelstrom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

To: William Terrell
Why wouldn't Ashcroft want a strong 2A case to get to the Supreme Court, and get a concrete ruling? He's pro-gun isn't he?

Sure, he's pro gun; but he's also a pragmatic man. And Bush is a moderate on gun issues, e.g., he's in favor of AW bans. The short answer to your question is if the US SC rules correctly on the 2nd, and concurs with the excellent dicta of the 5thCircuit in Emerson, then it MUST analyze the last four words of the the 2nd: shall not be infringed. The bastards in both parties are really afraid of this. The SC (except for maybe Thomas and Scalia) is also very, very afraid to "do the right thing" because it would mean that about 99% of the federal gun laws (including the 1934 NFA which outlawed full auto) would not only be null and void, those state laws which infringe would be subject to suits to overturn them from every corner of the nation. In my opinion, this would be a good thing. However, the Repubos and Ashcroft really do not want the SC to rule on the 2nd since they would much rather simply maintain the status quo until the next administration can take over and screw up the 2nd again. Its one thing to say that an administration thinks that the 2nd is about an individual right, and its quite another to actually take steps to repeal unconstitutional gun laws. What the Bush administration recommends to Congress about the soon to be sunsetted 1994 AW ban will speak volumes about just how much they revere the Constitution and the RKBA.

31 posted on 05/11/2002 7:20:17 PM PDT by 45Auto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson