White House reverses [decades old] stand on right to bear arms

Associated Press ^ | Wednesday, May 8 | Associated Press

[1Old Pro]

Ted Olson & Ashcroft make me happy and proud that Bush is in the White House.

[Diddle E. Squat]

This is great, but some spare tires and hairy bellies make me wish there wasn't a right to bare midrifts.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Does if you are a liberal, they really can't count, don't think it is even important!

[rdb3]

Can't be. Bush ain't no conservative! < /sarcasm>

[stands2reason]

Of course. You should know by know, Bush can do no right. The marxists (shh) Constitutionalists on this forum will continue to straighten you out about this fact.

[Brownie74]

....the Bush administration has told the Supreme Court that it believes the Constitution protects an individual's right to possess firearms.

I could have told them that 50 years ago.

[stands2reason]

It's "decades" old stance. That means it has been official government position for about 40 years. Even under Reagan. Only under "liberal" Bush has it now changed.

[The KG9 Kid]

"... I am glad that the Bush administration has reversed this long-standing policy, but worry how long it will last."

At the longest, it will last until the next Attorney General of the US rescinds the policy or until the current Attorney General changes his mind.

At the briefest, it will last until the next US citizen is prosecuted by the US Justice Department for non-violent firearm-related crimes -- namely, sometime this afternoon.

This 'change in position' by Ashcroft that we're all supposed to be celebrating to the heavens means absolutely nothing.

[No.6]

What worries me is the same thing: why NOT bring it to the SC, if in fact the official policy is to agree with Emerson (and us)?

Unfortunately the effect is to take a case which was on its way to the SC and, correctly ruled, would have overturned many unConstitutional laws, and derail it. Or, the effect of a pro-2nd official stance is that anti-2nd laws shall remain in effect; and later, if an anti-2nd administration gets in, the structure of bad law will remain on which more bad law can be built.

The Administration (an ethical one, anyway) is not entitled not to enforce the law; that duty is only removed if the law is removed. Only the SC (effectively; since lower rulings are appealed) or the Congress can remove these bad laws, and we certainly know that Congress is not going to help us here. Even if we get some repeals through the House there is no glimmer of hope from the Senate.

Wish I was more optimistic; I hope only that the SC will choose to hear the case anyway and that since both sides (Emerson and the administration) agree now that the ruling would then be overwhelming and decisive.

[Hard Case]

Anything firearm related legislation that came out of the government after the Bill of Rights would not ever be good. You know people praise it when conceal-carry passes in a certain state but any laws a state passed on the restriction of conceal-carry in the first place violates the 2nd Amendment. Essentially they are doling out priveleges, with restrictions, that should should never have been taken away from our rights in the first place.

[Alamo-Girl]

Yeehaw! Thanks for the heads up!

[Victoria Delsoul]

Excellent news. Thank you.

[dixiechick2000]

Ooooh! This is GREAT news!
Thanks for the ping, Tonk.

[dixiechick2000]

heheheh! Emily Litella bump!

;o)
Thanks for the smile!

[Hard Case]

Interesting. Those who support the Constitution you label as marxists? Where did you learn your politikin? Why not just call us environmental facist perpetuators of genocide? It would be as equally inaccurate.

[agitator]

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."

Hmmmmmm.

Fully automatic firearms are particularly suited to criminal misuse

Semi-automatic firearms are particularly suited to criminal misuse

Rifles are particularly suited to criminal misuse

Shotguns are particularly suited to criminal misuse

Pistols are particularly suited to criminal misuse

Revolvers are particularly suited to criminal misuse

BB guns are particularly suited to criminal misuse

Spud guns are particularly suited to criminal misuse

Slingshots are particularly suited to criminal misuse

 

Who defines who is "unfit" ? The ATF? What a load of crap.  Gun owners are so desperate that this non-statement is probably looked at as "good news." Sigh.

This is akin to a government official in 1905 saying the Indians got a raw deal. Wake me up when a single piece of federal anti-gun law goes away or isn't replaced with something worse.

[GretchenEE]

fyi

[stands2reason]

No, just there are some marxists on this forum that are posing as constitutionalists in order to crush the Republican Party. I'm sorry, you may not like it, but it's the truth.

[GretchenEE]

fyi in case you haven't seen this.

Tonk, thanks for the ping. I really appreciate it.

[Recovering_Democrat]

Finally, something we can be proud of Dubya about. This, cloning, and the ICC withdrawl.

Yeah, that war on terrorism, green light for Israel, tax cut, non-compliance with Kyoto, cessation of funding for foreign abortions, and his fund-raising efforts for a future Republican Senate are worthless. ;-)