Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bush Lawyers Target Gun Control's Legal Rationale
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL ^ | January 7, 2005 | JESS BRAVIN

Posted on 01/07/2005 9:56:54 AM PST by neverdem

Readying for a constitutional showdown over gun control, the Bush administration has issued a 109-page memorandum aiming to prove that the Second Amendment grants individuals nearly unrestricted access to firearms.

The memorandum, requested by Attorney General John Ashcroft, was completed in August but made public only last month, when the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel posted on its Web site several opinions1 setting forth positions on various legal issues. Reaching deep into English legal history and the practice of the British colonies prior to the American Revolution, the memorandum represents the administration's latest legal salvo to overturn judicial interpretations that have prevailed since the Supreme Court last spoke on the Second Amendment, in 1939. Although scholars long have noted the ambiguity of the 27-word amendment, courts generally have interpreted the right to "keep and bear arms" as applying not to individuals but rather to the "well-regulated militia" maintained by each state.

Reversing previous Justice Department policy, Mr. Ashcroft has declared that the Second Amendment confers a broad right of gun ownership, comparable with the First Amendment's grant of freedom of speech and religion. In November 2001, he sent federal prosecutors a memorandum endorsing a rare federal-court opinion, issued the previous month by the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans, that found an individual has the right to gun ownership. President Bush adopted that view as well, saying that "the Constitution gives people a personal right to bear arms," and doesn't merely protect "the rights of state militias," in an interview published days before last year's election in National Rifle Association magazines.

The new Justice Department memorandum acknowledges that "the question of who possess the right secured by the Second Amendment remains open and unsettled in the courts and among scholars," but goes on to declare that...

(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: California; US: District of Columbia; US: Louisiana; US: Texas; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: ashcroft; bang; banglist; doj; guncontrol; secondamendment
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240 ... 261-265 next last
To: GovernmentShrinker
The First doesn't give you the right to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater, or barge into a public school (funded with federal and state money) classroom and drown out the teacher with your rant on your pet issue.

What are the first five words of the First Amendment? In particular, what is the first word?

What authority should Congress have over theatrical vocalizations that an "absolute" interpretation of the First Amendment would disallow?

201 posted on 01/07/2005 10:40:22 PM PST by supercat (To call the Constitution a 'living document' is to call a moth-infested overcoat a 'living garment'.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: jonestown
jonestown said: "BTW, -- why are you lecturing to me about our RKBA's? Do you really think I'm advocating some sort of infringements on that right?"

The "lecture" was to point out that you were failing to recognize that the burden of justifying any infringement is on the government. The Second Amendment offers no latitude for such infringements.

Whether nuclear weapons SHOULD be outlawed for civilian possession is not relevant. Few argue that they are not "arms".

You don't have to overtly support infringements of the right to keep and bear arms to be part of the problem. It is sufficient to suggest that the courts should decide which arms are protected without Constitutional authority to do so.

You have suggested that smallpox cultures or poison might be suitable for prohibition because they are not "arms". In 1939 the Supreme Court failed to protect a defendant from a criminal charge for possessing a short-barreled shotgun because it may not be "suitable".

In both cases, there is a presumption that the government can outlaw "stuff" without proving that such stuff do not constitute "arms". I challenged you to disagree, and if you disagree, to suggest a new Amendment clarifying the protection of the Second Amendment.

The key point I would make is that criminalizing possession independent of an otherwise criminal act is prior restraint and should not be tolerated. It infringes the rights of the law-abiding and barely inconveniences the criminals.

202 posted on 01/07/2005 11:02:03 PM PST by William Tell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies]

To: Chemist_Geek; Dead Corpse
It doesn't say that the RKBA may be infringed after conviction, now does it? All it says is "shall not be infringed." Therefore, according to the fundamentalist interpretation, no one may ever lose their RKBA.

Common sense and a little research please. " The security of a free state" part was most certainly a prevention of the SLAVES in the era from bearing arms, therefore in my FUNDAMENTALIST view, those convicted with due process, during their enslavement to the state, SHALL be infringed.

Unless of course, we Issue a 9mm upon admission to our penal facilities for an extended vacation...

203 posted on 01/07/2005 11:02:38 PM PST by Gilbo_3 (Patience is a virtue, but it aint one of mine !!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
President Bush adopted that view as well, saying that "the Constitution gives people a personal right to bear arms," and doesn't merely protect "the rights of state militias..."

President Dubya, you da man! - Seaplaner

204 posted on 01/07/2005 11:10:52 PM PST by Seaplaner (Never give in. Never give in. Never...except to convictions of honour and good sense. W. Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vic heller; Dead Corpse
What's your post-911 attitude on limitation of weapon ownership by private individuals? I ain't giving up until one of you gun-nuts tells me why it's okay for a naturalized muslim terrorist(or anybody else for that matter) to walk arround with a nuke

What in the he!! makes you think a piece of paper, ie, a law , constitutional or otherwise would prevent said mooslimb from nuking D.C.?

205 posted on 01/07/2005 11:11:59 PM PST by Gilbo_3 (Patience is a virtue, but it aint one of mine !!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: Feckless
Frankly, I don't understand how any historical or Constitutional scholar could come to any conclusion other than that the Second Amendment was meant to enumerate and protect an individual right.

Read the appropriate portions of the Federalist Papers, and the intent of the framers is vividly clear.

The Second exists so the people can control the State militias and standing Federal army by force of arms, if need be. What else would keep the militia well regulated, a condition necessary to the security of a free state?

Keep in mind that "Militia" was defined in English Dictionaries at least as late as 1814 as "The Army, in its entirety", and that States were considered individual soverign political entities until the War Between the States rendered the Federal Government into a National Government.

206 posted on 01/07/2005 11:21:06 PM PST by Smokin' Joe (I'm still waiting for this global warming stuff to get to North Dakota.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: supercat
supercat said: "Actually, it [US vs Miller] didn't even say that. All it said was that if Miller/Layton wanted to make such claim, they would have to prove it in court;..."

Actually, actually, the Court made some comments and remanded the case. My reading of their decision is consistent with the idea that the lower court which ruled that the Second Amendment protected the defendant should offer the prosecution the opportunity to continue with their case, but that the PROSECUTION would have to prove that the shotgun is NOT suitable.

How could there possibly be such a burden on the defendant? Next we would have people charged with bank robbery forced to prove that their withdrawal was from their account or people charged with murder forced to prove that the "victim" died of natural causes.

207 posted on 01/07/2005 11:22:01 PM PST by William Tell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 200 | View Replies]

To: Gilbo_3
Common sense and a little research please. " The security of a free state" part was most certainly a prevention of the SLAVES in the era from bearing arms, therefore in my FUNDAMENTALIST view, those convicted with due process, during their enslavement to the state, SHALL be infringed.

For "the people", substitute "all free persons", and one gets a reading which is logical, consistent, and shows how Feinstein et al. see the U.S. populace.

208 posted on 01/07/2005 11:24:58 PM PST by supercat (To call the Constitution a 'living document' is to call a moth-infested overcoat a 'living garment'.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies]

To: supercat

thanks for clarifying my rant... 8>)


209 posted on 01/08/2005 12:09:57 AM PST by Gilbo_3 (Patience is a virtue, but it aint one of mine !!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 208 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Hey they push that through. The liberals will be screaming about how the U.S. will become a slaughterhouse. How will they explain the huge drop in violent crime? I'm sure they'll come up with some twisted, cryptic rationale.


210 posted on 01/08/2005 12:15:36 AM PST by superskunk (Quinn's Law: Liberalism always produces the exact opposite of it's stated intent.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: El Gato

Public Skuul teaches that it IS a "living document", made so by constantly being reinterpreted to remain relevant to the present.

I understand your point, but I clearly recall being told strait out that the constitution is a "living document" on many occasions.

The taxpayer funded liberal indoctrination camps K-12 would suspend any student with the temerity to argue otherwise.

Many post here have pointed out examples of Colleges that have no greater tolerance for historical accuracy and proper understanding of our constitution than the primary schools.

This is why I had to relearn so many things after escaping the public schools!

RKBA is a right, not a priveledge, it is not subject to any legitimate regulation under the constitution.
All those in prison merely for "gun control" infractions are political prisoners.


211 posted on 01/08/2005 1:30:43 AM PST by Richard-SIA ("The natural progress of things is for government to gain ground and for liberty to yield" JEFFERSON)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: Joe Brower
...aiming to prove that the Second Amendment grants individuals nearly unrestricted access to firearms.
Reversing previous Justice Department policy, Mr. Ashcroft has declared that the Second Amendment confers a broad right of gun ownership...

It's a shame that so many had to call out this specific "slip of the tongue". It's an even worse shame that the tongues speaking them slipped in the first place. {;^(
They may as well have said "Worship government, granter of rights."
Shame, shame, shame...still much teaching to do on this issue.
212 posted on 01/08/2005 5:03:43 AM PST by philman_36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: King Prout
the whole "militia" argument is spurious anyway: "milita" means every (male) citizen of able body at least 17 years of age.

True, as far as you & I are concerned. However, look up militia in a pre-1970 dictionary and then in a post 1980 dictionary.The definitions are quite different. The anti's will stop at nothing.

213 posted on 01/08/2005 5:21:10 AM PST by Puppage (You may disagree with what I have to say, but I shall defend to your death my right to say it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: El Gato
It just seems to me that the Gov't expected you to have your own gun back then.

That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of power and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and power-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a power of power; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.

214 posted on 01/08/2005 5:40:00 AM PST by OXENinFLA (I WILL find all those *%#$ING LITTLE GREEN FROGS in Metal Gear Solid!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: Joe Brower
The Second Amendment...
America's Original Homeland Security!
215 posted on 01/08/2005 7:10:27 AM PST by blackie (Be Well~Be Armed~Be Safe~Molon Labe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: 45Auto
"Readying for a constitutional showdown over gun control, the Bush administration...."

Do you have any idea of what exactly this means?

Perhaps they are referring to a gun-rights case actually being put before the SCOTUS on true 2nd amendment grounds, which that case in DC you pointed out in your post #168 may very well end up being.

Click the Gadsden flag for pro-gun resources!

216 posted on 01/08/2005 8:01:26 AM PST by Joe Brower (The Constitution defines Conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: need_a_screen_name
That is very true. It has been far from unanimous. Even the 1939 Miller decision (that most anti's cite) only stated that a sawed off shotgun was not weapon commonly used by the military and therefore was not a militia weapon.

That was in 1939.I remember in the late 1960's hearing about Soldiers and Marines caring sawed off shotguns in the jungles in Vietnam.

217 posted on 01/08/2005 8:13:28 AM PST by painter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Mogollon
However, it's interesting to note that the marines used sawed-off shotguns in the south pacific during WWII as banzai stoppers.

That would have been deadly medicine for a banzi charge.12guage 00 Buck.

218 posted on 01/08/2005 8:21:05 AM PST by painter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Puppage

dictionary shmictionary... the US Code is pretty clear, and what matters is what the Founders meant by that word.

I pimp-slap gungrabbers with this all the time - and it does shut them up.

but you do not err: the hoplophobes will never ever stop, and no trick is too low for their use.


219 posted on 01/08/2005 9:01:02 AM PST by King Prout (Halloween... not just for breakfast anymore.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 213 | View Replies]

To: Chemist_Geek
The gun-fundamentalists will surely bleat, "What part of shall not be infringed don't you understand?"

Your anti-gun streak is showing. Aren't you the one who claimed that some federal gun laws are constitutional?

220 posted on 01/08/2005 10:25:40 AM PST by jmc813 (J-E-T-S JETS JETS JETS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240 ... 261-265 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson