It looks like Olson, would back Giuliani on any infringment though.
What makes you say that?
"What makes you say that?
From the article. "Olson - whose position as Solicitor General requires him to defend federal laws when they are challenged in the courts - asked the Supreme Court to deny certiorari (decline to review) to two firearm-related cases - U.S. v. Emerson and U.S. v. Haney."
Olsen presented Ashcroft's conclusion, that the 2nd Amend refers to individual rights. He acknowledged that in his request to deny cert in Emerson, but failed to do it with Haney. Haney was found guilty, because he was not recognized as a member of a State organized militia, for the purpose of owning a machine gun.
The second Amendment says, "the right of the people, shall not be infringed." Olsen's arguments in the 2 cases are contradictory, or at least willfully ingnorant and unconcerned, with regard to who the "people" are. Also, there is no logical limit to what infringements are allowed by the following position held and presented by Olsen. The Second Amendment allows, "reasonable restrictions designed to prevent possession [of firearms] by unfit persons or to restrict the possession of types of firearms that are particularly suited to criminal misuse." All firearms are particularly suited for criminal misuse, as are many other things. The term unfit persons is vague and can include any and all folks not deemed by the govm't to be fit to possess and bear arms. It does not simply include felons, by virtue of law justified by attainder, and certified nutacases, it includes misdemeanors, and simple accusations.