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."
BTW, this article says it was a Beretta pistol. I don't know from pistols, all I know is Beretta semi-automatic. Do you think he had a pistol? or that the writer got it wrong?
It would be a tremedous ruling in favor of our rights at a Federal level. I'm wondering though, I had heard that this still enables individual states to maintain such constraints on firearms as they see fit, to the point of yet again infringing upon our rights. I wonder exactly how far they can go at a state level say, in a place like Californistan?
Even libertarians can do well on psychotropic medicine. However, it appears you happen to be debating one that got a placebo.
"...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
Why do you have such a hard time with the word bear?
Main Entry: bear
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): bore /'bOr, 'bor/; borne
/'bOrn, 'born/; also born /'born/;
bear·ing
Etymology: Middle English beren to carry, bring forth,
from Old English beran; akin to Old High German beran
to carry, Latin ferre, Greek pherein
Date: before 12th century
For one thing, the people in the states retain the rights, not the state itself. Secondly, if the state wants to remain as part of the Republic, it must also follow the guidelines set forth in the Constitution. By arguing that "States" have the right to infringe on firearms ownership, then the states could also say, ban printing presses and conduct door to door searches or waive trial by jury. Californistan, as you call it, is what happens when communism takes over.
The pistol that was used was a Berretta 92, a 9MM. The military calls it the M9. The government adopted it after the Colt 1911A1 .45.
One of the points that was made during the proceedings was that he used the very pistol that the government or a militia would use.
(But that might just make too much sense, I reckon. . . )
"In my view, the Emerson opinion, and the balance it strikes, generally reflect the correct understanding of the Second Amendment," Mr. Ashcroft told prosecutors.
How do they balance "shall not be infringed", and why don't they want the Supremes to hear it?
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain...
Coming next week, a policy change.
It is also in line with FreeRepublic's opinion (the other day someone defined Freepers to a newbie: all Freepers agree on two things--1) the Clintons are as low as you can get and still be human and 2) leave my guns alone. Freepers agree on little else as a group).
Kind of like the First Amendment is subject to reasonable restrictions designed to prevent free speech by unfit persons within 60 days of an election or to restrict the possession of a printing press to those who are particularly suited to misuse.
For freedom,
Locke
More empty talk. Just what I'm coming to expect from this administration.
We note further that military weapons in 2002 include tanks, APCs, C-4, F-16s, B-2s, aircraft carriers, etc. Put that in the Miller decision and see what the USSC actually meant.
And even a sawed-off shotgun could be useful militarily, in fighting a guerilla war. But in 1939, we weren't fighting one (officially, anyway).
For freedom,
Locke
Guns Save Lives !!
Freedom Is Worth Fighting For !!
The Right Of The People To Keep And Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed !!
An Armed Citizen, Is A Safe Citizen !!
No Guns, No Rights !!
Molon Labe !!
Guns Save Lives !!
Freedom Is Worth Fighting For !!
The Right Of The People To Keep And Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed !!
An Armed Citizen, Is A Safe Citizen !!
No Guns, No Rights !!
Molon Labe !!
Here's a more appropriate headline...
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.