Posted on 06/19/2002 6:03:30 PM PDT by RogueIsland
Upon the announcement of the decision, the Violence Policy Center (VPC), a group that worked closely with the Clinton White House, sent out a press release hailing the decision and claiming it to be a victory for the VPC position that the Second Amendment is not an individual right.
"Today's Supreme Court action is a victory for public safety and security and a defeat for the National Rifle Association and gun criminals, who have been chomping at the bit for the Supreme Court to overrule its own precedent on the Second Amendment.
Although I disagree with their characterization, I believe that the SCOTUS decision to deny certiorari to Emerson made it plain that they were not ready or willing to take up the matter of what has been called the Lautenberg Amendment. The VPC believes the decision is a positive development in their quest for the total abolition of private firearms ownership and unfortunately I have to agree. This ruling is a bad for those agree with the original decision by Judge Sam Cummings issued in 1999 and believe the Lautenberg amendment to be flawed and unconstitutional. Cummings wrote:
"It is absurd that a boilerplate state court divorce order can collaterally and automatically extinguish a law-abiding citizens Second Amendment rights, particularly when neither the judge issuing the order, nor the parties nor their attorneys are aware of the federal criminal penalties arising from firearm possession after entry of the restraining order. That such a routine civil order has such extensive consequences totally attenuated from divorce proceedings makes the statute unconstitutional. There must be a limit to government regulation on lawful firearm possession. This statute exceeds that limit, and therefore it is unconstitutional."
The Lautenberg amendment, passed in 1994, turned domestic misdemeanor offenses into the equivalent of a federal felony, thus denying anyone, who had pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor offense such as a threatening a spouse, of ever owning a firearm. It even made the offense retroactive. Anyone who had ever pleaded guilty to such a misdemeanor became unable to own or use a firearm in his/her occupation. Finally it made possession of a firearm while under a restraining order a federal felony offense.
This was a politically correct law ostensibly designed to cut down on domestic violence and spousal abuse. It accomplished two things: reducing the number of persons eligible to own firearms and making federal felons out of many police officers, military personnel, and law-abiding gun owners, like Dr. Emerson. In fact the cases that have come before the courts have expanded the Lautenberg amendment even further than envisioned by the Congress. Now the courts have ruled that any statutory definition of domestic violence can be used to enforce this law even if there is no actual violence that meets the actual Lautenberg definitions. Thus even an argument can be cause for losing one’s gun rights.
Additionally the courts have ignored the provision that requires defendants to be informed about the Lautenberg provisions before the defendant acquiesces to a domestic violence misdemeanor guilty plea.
SCOTUS by upholding the Fifth Circuit decision has sentenced Dr. Timothy Emerson to another trial. When the government appealed Judge Cummings decision, the Fifth Circuit court decided last year that Cummings’ opinion on the Second Amendment was correct but disagreed with his declaring the Lautenberg amendment unconstitutional. The judges stated the government could place limitations on that right, reinstated the federal indictment against Emerson, and remanded the case to the District Court for trial. Emerson appealed the reinstatement of the federal indictment to SCOTUS and lost.
William Meteja, the federal prosecutor who stated that the Second Amendment is only applicable to persons serving in the National Guard with weapons used in the Guard, has already told the defense attorney he will go to trial.
This will be Emerson’s second trial. He was acquitted of two felony charges in a court case brought by the state of Texas. Thus the Supremes have gotten out of a decision on the constitutionality of the Lautenberg amendment for quite a bit longer.
It was one of those gutless Court decisions. The issue is clear and Cummings stated it succinctly. Yet, gun control is a hot political topic and no one wants to get near it. The politicians are staying away across most of the country, while the courts are staying as far away as possible. While anti-gun prosecutors like William Meteja are taking advantage of the hiatus to garner more innocent scalps on their belts. It seems our courts are forgetting the presumption of innocence.
Actually by continuing to support GW's antics you are doing something worse than voting for a single democrat. Instead you are supporting the continued drift to the left by the republican party and thereby ensuring that your only choices in the future will be a democrat or a democrat who calls himself a republican.
I withhold my vote to teach the Republicans a lesson.
Hillary gets elected in 2004, and since I'm still teaching the Republicans a lesson, she gets re-elected in 2008.
And of course, I'm teaching Congress the same lesson, so we have 8 years of a Democratic House and Senate.
We now have another 20-30 years of appointed-for-life Federal and Supreme Court judges.
Yeah, you know, you're right. That will certainly help the conservative cause.
Thanks. I feel much better now.
You continue to vote republican
GW being a stand up guy nominates supreme court justices that everyone can be proud of. We then get 3 more justices like the republican appointed John Paul Stevens. Of course I'm probably wrong since GW has been so effective at getting strict constitutionalists appointed to the lower courts.
The republicans get your positive reinforcement that their move to the left is a good thing and continue down that path as they have been.
In 2012 your choices for president are the moderate Ted Kennedy or the radical right wing extremist Olympia Snow.
I'm ticked off about Emerson also, but one can argue that this was best from a tactical point of view (it wasn't the very best case for the pro-2A side, nor are the justices lined up well yet). However, the actions of the Republican Party and its leader regarding gun rights in 2004 are highly critical, and cannot be fudged either way. To paraphrase Bush: "Either you're with us, or you're against the 2nd Amendment and liberty."
That is what my vote will depend on in 2004. In 2002, I am willing to give the Pubbies one last chance, to work for a Senate majority so that they have no excuse when it comes to judicial appointments. Give them the rope to hang themselves with, as it were - and hope to Heaven that they don't hang themselves, but the absurd notion that the 2nd protects a "collective" right (whatever the F@#$ that is).
Great point. I've been sensing weakness in my leverage lately when at sobriety checkpoints, airports, super bowl games, home with tree roots in the front yard, etc.
With a super duper police presence everywhere, concerns for self defense should be the farthest thing from our minds. Ask anyone with a 14yr. old daughter in Utah.
Which ones are that?
Since around the time of FDR, the President has had a tremendous amount of power via Executive Order. He also has the power of the pardon.
Want to sew up my vote, no matter what else you do, Mr. President? Issue the following executive orders:
1) The BATF shall no longer be armed.
2) As a tax agency, the BATF shall no longer have arrest powers.
3) Likewise, the FBI is an investigative force, not a police force. Henceforth, no FBI agent shall have arrest powers except on Federal property.
4) Any Federal agent not on Federal property that witnesses a crime or through investigation discovers that a crime has been commited shall notify the nearest state, county or city police force.
And then pardon every single person that has been convicted of a gun law violation. Any other offense that that person has commited shall stand.
All of this is completely within the president's power to do. And the gun lobby and us 2A people would pave the way to a second term for him with their bodies.
See #28. Specifically the one about the pardons. Now that the Supremes have refused to hear the Olsen case, why doesn't GW just pardon the old boy? You know, make the gun violation pointless? And continue to pardon anyone the BATF or FBI arrest for violation of NFA, GCA or his daddy's 1986 gun law.
Who is he going to piss off? The gun grabbers aren't going to vote for him anyway.
But to answer your question directly, Dubya has not done anything about the thousands of anti-gun laws currently on the books. He has introduced no legislation to remove them, he has not issued an Executive Order specifying that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right and departments of the Executive Branch must treat it as such and he has not pardoned any of the people railroaded by overzealous BATF troops and Distric Attorneys.
All of those things are in his power and he had done nothing.
Oh I see, a Pardon and if he doesn't he is anti 2nd amendment. LMAO.
In 1988, GHWB ran for President. In order to court the gun owners of the US, he even went so far as to buy a lifetime membership in the NRA. Millions of gun owners, me included, voted for him.
As an active duty service member in 1992, I was very impressed with his record on foreign affairs. I thought his handling of the Gulf War was spectacular. Considering his ratings in the polls of the time, so did the rest of the country.
I was a little less impressed with his policy on the economy, but I knew that Clinton would raise taxes more than Bush would, so it wasn't enough to vote against him.
But in 1989, Bush the Elder banned semi-auto imports by executive order. When a bunch of Federal agents decided that Sammy and Vicky Weaver needed to die so they could take Randy Weaver to jail for selling a piece of wood that was too short, some people in the NRA called them jack-booted thugs. Bush objected to that and returned his lifetime membership.
And come election day, lots and lots of us stayed home or voted for Perot rather than vote for someone that sold us out.
This is Dubya's future too if he continues to ignore gun owners.
It is not enough to hold onto the status quo. Dubya can't repeal laws, but there are some things he can do. With the stroke of a pen he can eliminate his daddy's ban on semi-auto imports. He can define with an Executive Order how departments under his control are supposed to enforce the law, so he can directly influence how the BATF and FBI investigate gun ownership crimes. Or he could even pardon some of the 200 or so federally licensed gun dealers that have been pauperized and imprisoned for paperwork violation.
If he's for the 2nd Amendment, he should do something about it. He has the authority.
But if he refuses to use that authority, what does that say about his stance on the 2nd?
Yeah all of those "gun owners" in the hood. Get real.
I have something against ex-con gun owners.
You think that the 2nd Amendment goes:
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 unless your a convicted felon or have been arrested for a domestic dispute.
You don't think any ex-con should have a gun, or are we just talking about people who have committed violent crimes?
If Bush pulls another Bush, Sr. then we've already handed the election to a gun grabber. See how it works? A Dem will stab us in the heart, a rino will lie to get our vote and then stab us in the back.
How do you want it?
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.