Posted on 05/08/2002 11:57:58 AM PDT by Patriotman
That is EXACTLY what the White House is trying to prevent Emerson from doing,and I have always been lead to believe the WH has a certain amount of influence.
This doesn't prevent that in any way, and in fact it strengthens your case.
How does giving a STRONG hint to the Supreme Court that the WH doesn't want them to hear a 2nd Amendment case strengthen future 2nd amendment cases?
Actually, the anti's misconstruction of Miller is worse than that. Contrary to their common claims, the Court did not uphold the conviction of Miller (nor co-defendant Layton). THESE MEN WERE NEVER CONVICTED!
The bottom line, literally, on the Miller decision was that the case was remanded to the lower court. The Supreme Court justices didn't say that a sawed-off shotgun wasn't a militarily-useful weapon, but rather that they could not themselves make that determination; it would be up to the lower court to do that.
When the Miller decision was handed down, neither Miller nor Layton was under indictment on the NFA'34 charges. Consequently, they were under no obligation to present a case, and they didn't. By the time the case was decided, though, Miller was dead and Layton was in jail on other charges. The government, rather than seeking to prosecute Layton, plea-bargained for time served.
In short, what happened is that the government's lawyer argued before the court that they could show Miller/Layton's gun was not of a type covered by the Second Amendment and the Court ruled that they could try to make their case in trial court. The government, after having been told that they could proceed with the case, probably recognized that it couldn't win (sawed-off shotguns were used in World War I, after all) and for all practical purposes dropped the charges and declared victory.
When the left wing scumbags make statements like this: 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.
When the losers in political life, the third party irrelevants say Bush is still a loser! You know the professional GW haters who hate GW 30 hours a day (they work overtime hating and trying to bash him and blame him for everything that happens from the sun rising in the East and setting in the West!)
The rest of us say "Good Job Mr. President!"
You can tell the value of a man by his enemies! Again President Bush's Value comes across loud and clear except for his Axis of Whining Weasel Haters in America!
I understand that you need to find something bad in everything Bush does, but this is the wrong conspiracy theory.
The Lautenberg Act (which--it should not be forgotten--was passed by the Senate in October of 1996 by a 98-0 margin) contains many elements that would be eggregiously unconstititional even if the Second Amendment were ignored. Among other things, it could be struck down for the same reason as "Gun Free School Zone Act I". Additionally, it makes a total mockery of the Fifth Amendment right of due process and (while not applicable to Emerson) the Constitution's prohibition against ex post facto legislation.
I see no reason why the Court would have to make a decisive ruling on the meaning of the Second-Amendment to strike down the Lautenberg Attrocity. I'm bewildered, though, by why Ashcroft isn't letting things proceed forward.
I know this. They can do whatever they want to do. However,it is foolish and dishonest to try and pretend they can't be swayed or influenced by the White House.
but this is the wrong conspiracy theory.
Only because it is a conspiracy fact.
That ain't true.
I can't recall criticizing the President here on FR yet for any of his administration's policies. If you can find one -- and it would be easy to do -- please remind me.
What I am saying is the DOJ's tack on RKBA is designed to keep the Emerson case from being heard. Another poster said that the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals wrote in an escape hatch for the USSC so as not to hear the part of the decision that pertained to the 2nd. I don't disagree, but I'm also not second-guessing what the USSC might or might not be interested in.
The government's lawyers plead with the court not to rush to judgement. You cannot deny that.
Emerson must be heard. I don't care that the end result may mean that BATF goes back to being a boring old outfit that is primarily concerned with cigarette tax stamps and bootleg barrels of whisky.
I'm not Bush's enemy. He hasn't made me sorry yet that I broke ranks and voted for him.
You're being fooled by headlines created by major media news-gatherers who decide what the news is, rwfromkansas. Today's events are not as they appear to be.
Don't believe me? Watch where this leads.
I don't live in fantasy land. But I beginning to question whether you do. I can't stand Clinton but we can't change the fact that he was the President of the United States. He won't stop critizing Bush but at least he is out of the way for a short time. I am realistic enough to know that former Presidents represent the country in things like this all the time. We may not want him representing us but there are those that do. That is reality. Personally this shows how unimportant Bush feels he is if he sends him to the middle of no where for a "back page news" assignment. I don't get upset over nothing and this is nothing.
This is also a message to everyone else. Get involved. We are going to have the Public Relations War of a lifetime in the next couple of months. This is the time for everyone to join one or more of the Gun Groups. This is not the time to say that we can't afford it or a hundred other excuses. This is also not the time to pretend to play Red Dawn in your backyard. This for real. Get involved. Go to the rallies, pay the dues, make the donations and volunteer.
Why would it serve as such a basis? There are many grounds for overturning the Lautenberg Attrocity, many of which would hardly mention the Second Amendment.
Among other things, the Lautenberg Act seeks to federalize the issuance of restraining orders and domestic-violence prosecution. The Supreme Court already decided in Lopez that the federal government does not have plenary power; issues of local violence are a matter of state jurisdiction. For the Court to allow the government to prevail in this case would be for it to declare that the federal government has plenary power over anyone who possesses any artifact which has ever been involved in interstate commerce. For it to declare that would effectively annul its previous decision.
Further, I don't know to what extent statutes may be challenged on the basis of unconstitutional language which would not otherwise be relevant to the current case, but there are numerous other provisions in the Lautenberg Attrocity which are unconstitutional on their face. For example, it would retroactively change the punishment imposed upon someone who plead no-contest to a domestic violence charge in exchange for a completely-suspended sentence [which, if the person would otherwise have had to stay in jail pending trial, would be less 'punishing' than going to court and being acquitted]; such retroactive reworking of punishemnts is clearly forbidden by the Constitution.
The Lautenberg Act, despite its being passed 98-0 in a Republican-controlled Senate, is so eggregiously unconstitutional even on non-Second-Amendment grounds that the Court has plenty of 'outs'.
Am I reading this right? While the Bush administration offers this position, it's not ready to defend it in the Supreme Court?
They are playing a sophisticated political game with this 'decision'.
No one in power, state or federal, want the USSC to 'incorporate' the 2nd amendment [or any other individual rights for that matter], -- into the constitution. The current powers that be like the statis quo. --
-- The big 'statist' quo, in actually.
Thus, -- a sugar tit meaningless decision thrown to all us gun nuts.
You bought it. -- Thanks be that many here haven't.
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.