Posted on 05/08/2002 11:57:58 AM PDT by Patriotman
White House reverses stand on right to bear arms
Associated Press
Washington — Reversing decades of Justice Department policy, the Bush administration has told the Supreme Court that it believes the Constitution protects an individual's right to possess firearms.
At the same time, the administration's top Supreme Court lawyer said the case need not test that principle now.
The administration's view represents a reversal of government interpretations of the Second Amendment going back some 40 years.
"The current position of the United States ... is that the Second Amendment more broadly protects the rights of individuals, including persons who are not members of any militia or engaged in active military service or training, to possess and bear their own firearms," Solicitor-General Theodore Olson wrote in two court filings this week.
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."
Mr. Olson, the administration's top Supreme Court lawyer, was reflecting the view of Attorney-General John Ashcroft that the Second Amendment confers the right to "keep and bear arms" to private citizens and not merely to the "well-regulated militia" mentioned in the amendment's text.
Mr. Ashcroft caused a stir when he expressed a similar sentiment a year ago in a letter to the National Rifle Association.
"While some have argued that the Second Amendment guarantees only a 'collective' right of the states to maintain militias, I believe the amendment's plain meaning and original intent prove otherwise," Mr. Ashcroft wrote.
Critics accused him of kowtowing to the gun lobby and of undermining federal prosecutors by endorsing a legal view 180 degrees away from what has been official Justice Department policy through four Democratic and five Republican administrations.
At the time that Mr. Ashcroft wrote the letter, it was unclear whether he was expressing his personal view or stating a new policy position for the government. That question was mostly answered last November, when he sent a letter to federal prosecutors praising an appellate court's decision that found "the Second Amendment does protect individual rights" but noting that those rights could be subject to "limited, narrowly tailored specific exceptions."
That opinion by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals went on to reject arguments from Texas physician Timothy Emerson that a 1994 federal gun law was unconstitutional. The law was intended to deny guns to people under judicial restraining orders.
"In my view, the Emerson opinion, and the balance it strikes, generally reflect the correct understanding of the Second Amendment," Mr. Ashcroft told prosecutors.
Mr. Emerson appealed to the Supreme Court, putting the Justice Department in an awkward position. Although the government won its case in the lower court using the old interpretation of the Second Amendment, Mr. Ashcroft had switched gears by the time the case reached the high court.
Mr. Olson's court filing on Monday urged the Supreme Court not to get involved and acknowledged the policy change in a lengthy footnote. Mr. Olson also attached Mr. Ashcroft's letter to prosecutors.
Mr. Olson made the same notation in a separate case involving a man convicted of owning two machine guns in violation of federal law. In that case, the government also won a lower-court decision endorsing a federal gun-control law.
The Justice Department issued a statement Tuesday night saying its latest comments reflect the Attorney-General's position in the November letter to prosecutors.
"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," said Michael Barnes, president of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, which promotes gun control.
Mr. Barnes noted that other federal appeals courts and the Supreme Court have not found the same protection for individual gun ownership that the 5th Circuit asserted in the Emerson case.
The Supreme Court last ruled on the scope of the Second Amendment in 1939, when it said the clause protects only those rights that have "some reasonable relationship to the preservation of efficiency of a well-regulated militia."
Nope,it's the White House doing their damndest to make sure nobody pays any attention to the meaning of the second amendment.
Yup,this is spin worthy of Carville. Bubba-2 and company are trying to convince everybody they stand by the second amendment,while making sure they maintain the ability to violate everybody's rights.
Yup,that is EXACTLY what it is. Thank you for thinking,and seeing past the spin.
What are you going to do then?
That's why such is a risky strategy.
You won't see this because one of Bubba-2's campaign pledges was that he would sign legislation to make the so-called Assault Weapons Ban permanent if congress passed and sent it to him. Don't forget,it was his father who closed the machine gun registry,banned the importation of foreign military weapons,banned high capacity magazines,etc,etc,etc. Bush-1 signed and used executive orders to pass more gun laws than any other president I am aware of,including Carter AND Clinton.
No one is stopping you from breaking a federal gun law and going to SCOTUS over it. This doesn't prevent that in any way, and in fact it strengthens your case.
Telling the truth here won't win you any friends. 3 or 4 years ago, yes, but not today.
Bush-1 was a bigger gun-control freak than Clinton. He even used executive orders to pass gun laws he knew wouldn't pass Congress.
Rush mentioned this today...Good work by the Bush administration.That must have hurt Rusho.
You really think so?...........
Sober up,THINK about what was actually going on,and then get back to us.
Ah, for some reason, all the antigunners think that precedent somehow starts after FDR's term(s) of office, conveniently forgetting that there are almost 150 years of legal precedents IN FAVOR of an individual RKBA before that "policy" was implemented. All this is is a reversion to the ORIGINAL interpretation of the Second Amendment.
Why would the Marxists even bother,when Bubba-2 and the RINO's in the RNC are doing such a fine job for them?
Well,I don't know about Olsen,but I do have a higher IQ than Bush. "Smart" has nothing to do with this,though. Both are plenty smart enough to know what they are doing,which is being deceitful. They are just posing,not doing anything meaningful.
I'm going to continue to do what I'm doing now,and no un-Constitutional/illegal law they pass will change this. They could call for a total confiscation of all weapons tomorrow,and nothing would change because I wouldn't turn any of my guns over. If they want them,let them come take them.
Let us not forget Tax Cuts and the death of Kyoto and the War on Terrorism and Missle Defense and.....Bush is not perfect, but he is damn good.
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.