Posted on 05/08/2002 11:57:58 AM PDT by Patriotman
Now let's just hope Bush can go the rest of the year without doing more stupid liberal sh!t than he's already done.
Well, confound it, I'm totally against that! Imagine if your Uncle George or Cousin Ned or some other friend or relative is mindin' their business, and because some know-nuthin' type from Washington says it's all right to arm bears, they get shot! Why I'll send one o'them armed bears right to Washington, and see how they like them apples...
Huh? Bear arms? Not arm bears?Oh.
Never mind!
What a relief, it's only the same leftist bleat about the White House "reversing decades of policy" by insisting that the Second Amendment means the same thing today as when it was written.
g
Yeah, that's what the "shall not be infringed" part means... you have to, like, read between the lines, and stuff.
In its ruling, the appeals court included a lengthy discussion of the Second Amendment, concluding that the amendment "protects the rights of individuals, including those not actively a member of any militia . . . to privately possess and bear their own firearms, such as the pistol involved here, that are suitable as personal, individual weapons." It was this view that Olson's briefs explicitly endorsed.
But the appeals court also ruled that the Second Amendment is subject to "limited, narrowly tailored specific exceptions or restrictions . . . that are reasonable and not inconsistent with the right of Americans generally to keep and bear their private arms as historically understood in this country." It said the prohibition on gun ownership by someone subject to a domestic violence restraining order was such a reasonable exception, a view that Olson also endorsed in urging that the Supreme Court not to review the case.
That must have hurt Rusho.
U.S. Backs a Right to Bear Arms
Ashcroft affirms individual right to bear arms
Bush Administration Backs Individual Right to Bear Arms
Bush backs right to bear arms
Notice that the attorney for the US Government told the USSC 'Hey, no need to rush to judgement. Never mind that we changed our opinion. These aren't the droids you're looking for...'.
I'd rather hear the United State's Supreme Court's opinion on the Second Amendment rather than John Ashcroft's, thank you very much.
You hit right on the head. Why, however, does the Bush Administration not want the US SC to review the Emerson decision? Is it because they (as well as the whole damn US Senate) know that the court might actually have to address the "meaning" of "...shall not be infringed."?
What bothers me is that while they say, "yes, there is an individual right to arms", they also want to maintain, on the books, every rotten unconstitutional infringment of the second amendment ever legislated into place on both state and federal level. They know damn well that if the correct interpretation of "shall not be infringed" was arrived at by the SC, then 99% of these laws would be rendered null and void. What I want to see from Pres. Bush on the RKBA issue is a firm statement that the 1994 federal assault weapons ban is unconstitutional and will therefore not be enforced until it sunsets in 2004.
Wouldn't a test help the cause better?
Why this choice?
To the leftists, black is white and right is wrong. They are insane. Ashcroft's view is obviously a moderate one.
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.