Replies

Would you care to comment on the fact that Ashcroft filed a brief with the Supreme Court stating that the second amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms irrespective of his ties to a state militia? This was a reversal of govt policy going back 40 years.

So, President Clinton acknowledged in a State of the Union address that people have the right to keep and bear arms for hunting and sporting purposes.

I am bothered by the fact that, despite their rhetoric, Bush and Ashcroft have decided to keep Emerson as a political prisoner. While I can understand some reluctance to have his case go before the Supreme Court of the United States at this time (I don't agree with it, but understand it), the just and proper means for them to let the Court off the hook would be for Bush to quietly pardon Emerson, noting specifically that Emerson had been pardoned on all state charges, and that he was not informed at the time of the "restraining order" hearing that the order would forbid him from possessing weapons.

The media would perhaps try to hound Bush about releasing a wife beater or somesuch, but Bush should be able to counter with the facts mentioned above, along with some plain-talk discussion of American "due process".

Of course, that's all supposing Bush really supports the Second Amendment in principle, and not just when politically necessary.

"... Would you care to comment on the fact that Ashcroft filed a brief with the Supreme Court stating that the second amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms irrespective of his ties to a state militia? This was a reversal of govt policy going back 40 years."

Since the person you were speaking to hasn't replied yet, and no-one else has either, allow me:

Immediately after John Ashcroft filed that brief with the USSC, one of his attorneys from Justice filed another brief that asked to court not to hear the Emerson case that was placed before them.

The reasoning used in that brief was that the 2nd Amendment does not constitute an individual right to keep and bear arms.

We talked about that at length here on FR. Our conclusion was that Ashcroft's brief was a designed to lure in suckers who have the attention span of a gnat.

I believe that you missed that thread.

Did you actually read the brief? They basically said "it's an individual right yada, yada, yada" then said, 'but it doesn't apply in this case'.

It seems that they think it is an individual right, but the government can do anything it wants to restrict it. They've yet to mention any specific law they actually believe rins afoul of this 'individual constitutional right'. That I've heard of. Have I missed anything?

As usual, all words and no action from the bush administration.