[babyface00]

Is it at least possible, that Ashcroft is taking this to the courts in order to set up legal precedent affirming the second amendment? After all, just making policy statements doesn't do anything for future court cases. However, if the government loses, then a precedent could be set that would have long term, positive ramifications.

If Ashcroft refuses to prosecute existing laws, how will they ever get overturned by the courts? If he just backs down and refuses to prosecute, then the next administration can just reverse itself and the laws will still be on the books.

[FreeTally]

Is it at least possible, that Ashcroft is taking this to the courts in order to set up legal precedent affirming the second amendment?

No possibility. Ashcroft has been pretty clear that he thinks the right to bear arms is given by the government, and can be revoked at anytime with "reasonable regulations".

[sneakypete]

Is it at least possible, that Ashcroft is taking this to the courts in order to set up legal precedent affirming the second amendment?

No.If you read the original story and threads about this,it is clear he and Bubba-2 are doing everything they can do to limit the reach of any SC decision. They go out of their way to state that although the 2nd is a individual right,the federal government has a right and a responsibility to regulate firearms and firearms ownership/possession.