Second-Amendment Setup: What They Say Isn't What You Get

Second-Amendment Setup: What They Say Isn't What You Get
By Aaron Zelman and Claire Wolfe
Published 06. 22. 02 at 16:40 Sierra Time

Who made the following statements?
1. "The broad principle that there is an individual right to bear arms is shared by many Americans, including myself. I'm of the view that you can't take a broad approach to other rights, such as First Amendment rights, and then interpret the Second Amendment so narrowly that it could fit in a thimble. But I'm also of the view that there are limits on those rights. Just as you can't falsely shout fire in a crowded movie theater, you can put restrictions on who can own guns and how, when, and where they may be possessed."

___ Attorney General John Ashcroft
___ Solicitor General Theodore Olson
___ President George W. Bush
___ Sen. Charles Schumer

2. "While some have argued that the Second Amendment guarantees only a 'collective' right of the States to maintain militias, I believe the Amendment's plain meaning and original intent prove otherwise. Like the First and Fourth Amendments, the Second Amendment protects the rights of 'the people,' which the Supreme Court has noted is a term of art that should be interpreted consistently throughout the Bill of Rights. ... Of course, the individual rights view of the Second Amendment does not prohibit Congress from enacting laws restricting firearms ownership for compelling state interests ... just as the First Amendment does not prohibit [government from legislating against] shouting 'fire' in a crowded movie theater. "

___ Sen. Dianne Feinstein
___ NRA President Charlton Heston
___ Attorney General John Ashcroft
___ President George W. Bush

Dedicated Second-Amendment activists may recognize that the second statement was made by Attorney General John Ashcroft in his famous May 2001 letter (http://www.wmsa.net/ashcroft.htm) to the National Rifle Association. For this and other support of the pro-individual rights position, gun owners nationwide cheered Mr. Ashcroft.

But who made the first statement? It exactly reflects Ashcroft's point of view, but it wasn't Ashcroft who said it. Here's a hint: No pro-gunner ever cheered this speaker. The statement was made by Sen. Charles Schumer, one of the nation's most vehement and persistent opponents of firearms ownership, at a May 2002 press conference in which he criticized Attorney General Ashcroft, not for his views, but merely for his means of expressing them.

Similarly, at his confirmation hearings, Ashcroft admitted he agreed with and would enforce all the restrictions on firearms ownership Sen. Schumer has worked so hard to impose over the years. And in May 2002, immediately after the Justice Department filed a Supreme Court brief claiming the individual rights position as its official policy, Ashcroft said on "Larry King Live" that he fully supported the Brady Law, calling it a "reasonable regulation".

In their verbal sparring, Ashcroft and Schumer look like fierce opponents. Yet they express precisely the same viewpoints. They advocate stringent enforcement of precisely the same laws.

And if Second-Amendment supporters have achieved such a victory with the individual-rights position (rather than the "militia rights" or "states' rights" position) being voiced in high places, why are our opponents suddenly proclaiming individual rights while still working to destroy gun ownership? And why are our "friends" doing exactly the same thing?

As the following examples show, what these politicians and lobbyists proclaim and what they do are universes apart.

Which presidential administration called for appointment of 700 state and federal prosecutors whose sole responsibility is to prosecute "gun crimes"? We're not talking about crimes of violence, but about miscarriages of justice like these1:

Dane Yirkovsky came across a single .22 cartridge while laying carpet, pocketed it, and apparently forgot it. Because he had previous burglary convictions, he was a "felon in possession of ammunition." Fifteen years of his life are being wiped away by a mandatory minimum federal sentence.

Katica Crippen went to federal prison for posing for photos holding her boyfriend's firearm. Crippen, with a previous drug conviction, was another "felon in possession."

Michael Maloney had a youthful drug conviction, but had cleaned up his act, undergone extensive background checks to get a liquor license, and believed his felony record was expunged. So when he bought a .22 to protect himself when making late-night cash deposits at the bank, he checked No when asked if he was a felon. The BATF disagreed -- and Maloney got a 15-year mandatory-minimum sentence over the protest of the judge who sentenced him.

Candisha Robinson sold illegal drugs to undercover officers. Because the officers later found an unloaded gun locked in a trunk in her closet, federal prosecutors charged Robinson with "using" a gun while committing a drug crime.

Prosecutions such as these are not only a grave injustice to the victims. They are not only destroying trust in the entire justice system. They are not only costing taxpayers a fortune. They divert otherwise ordinary criminal prosecutions from state courts to federal courts. Federalizing of criminal prosecutions is a dangerous process that further undermines the Constitution by expanding federal government authority far beyond the tiny handful of constitutionally-defined federal crimes such as treason.

It wasn't the Clinton administration that called for more prosecutions like these. It wasn't the Clinton administration that created hundreds more prosecutors for the sole purpose of imprisoning thousands more non-violent gun owners. It's the allegedly pro-gun George W. Bush administration, in its Project Safe Neighborhoods.

The Bush administration's fact sheet - - for Project Safe Neighborhoods also says, "In addition to strict enforcement of existing gun laws, the President supports expanding instant background checks to close the gun show loophole and banning the importation of high-capacity ammunition clips."

In other words, we ain't seen nothin' yet. President Bush wants even more laws that violate the Second Amendment. (For more, read our article "What's a Compelling State Interest? What's a Felon?" (See below)

The Clinton administration was ruthless about passing laws, but lax about enforcing them. It takes a law-and-order Republican administration -- enthusiastically backed by organizations like the National Rifle Association -- to carry out the Democrats' dirty work. This is what Margaret Thatcher described at the "ratcheting process," in which a "left-wing" government pushes through policies that were previously intolerable to the people, and a "right-wing" government then enforces policies it once ardently opposed after those policies have become business-as-usual.

It hardly matters whether the ratcheting loss of Second-Amendment rights is a deliberate plot or merely the product of the prevailing political mindset that "government should do whatever it thinks necessary, regardless of the Constitution." The result is the continuing loss of liberty --and in the case of Project Safe Neighborhoods, vastly increased danger of punishment for gun owners.

Americans for Gun Safety also says it supports the individual-rights position on the Second Amendment. This group, which appeared suddenly on the scene about two years ago, initially positioned itself as an "educational group." It said it had no political agenda. It said (we paraphrase): "Let's face the fact that Americans have an absolute right to keep and bear arms; let's simply make gun ownership safer."

But from its beginnings, AGS (founded by Andrew McKelvey, multimillionaire founder of Monster.com) threw millions into political campaigns to "end the gun- show loophole" -- politician-speak for having the federal government regulate and track all private sales of firearms.

AGS helped pass state laws in Oregon and Colorado to achieve that goal. And AGS and Sen. John McCain, another ardent gun prohibitionist, have been as thick as thieves in a so-far unsuccessful attempt to impose Brady tracking, government databases, and waiting periods (which still exist despite the alleged "instant-check system") on private firearms sales nationwide.

AGS no longer pretends to be merely an "educational" group. While showing happy gun hobbyists as a background image on its Web site, its entire aim is to discourage gun ownership by making it more difficult to purchase firearms, and to hand the government the name of every person in the nation who ever legally purchases a gun. (Criminals will still buy untraced firearms while their law-abiding brethren submit to government scrutiny.)

All the while, the proponents of waiting periods, citizen-tracking, unsafe "safety" measures, and arbitrary restrictions on the manufacture and ownership of firearms sanctimoniously claim they believe wholeheartedly in the individual right to keep and bear arms. Just like John Ashcroft. Just like Bush administration Solicitor General Theodore Olson. Just like Charles Schumer.

As Sarah Brady always claimed, all they want is "a few reasonable restrictions." From Ashcroft to Schumer, they devoutly respect our individual right to keep and bear arms, except for a few harmless little limitations like:

Not allowing us to buy fully automatic firearms -- or being able to buy them only at exorbitant prices and after paying exorbitant taxes to the government

Forbidding us to own guns if we've ever (even decades ago) been convicted of a large group of misdemeanors

Forbidding us to defend ourselves with firearms on airplanes, in courthouses, and hundreds of other public places

Forbidding trained schoolteachers, principals, or parents from defending school children against Columbine-style rampages

Forcing us to keep our guns locked away or disabled in our homes so we can't use them against a violent attacker

Forcing us to beg government permission and submit to fingerprinting and criminal background checks to carry a handgun (IF they allow us to carry one at all)

Wanting us to tremble before 700 special prosecutors whose sole mission is to arrest and jail people like us It doesn't matter what they say

The individual rights position is now referred to by legal scholars as "the standard model." Virtually no serious scholar now gives credence to the "state's rights" or "militia rights" position from which opponents of gun ownership claimed their authority for so many years.

We should be, because the change represents a tremendous philosophical shift in the direction of honesty and liberty. To whatever extent courts in the future may use that interpretation to throw out outrageous anti-gun laws and the convictions based on them, we will be better off.

But we are not better off as long as politicians and lobbyists succeed in cynically using the individual-rights position to pursue their old, familiar goals of limiting firearms ownership and punishing firearms owners for harmless, technical violations of obscure laws. And those are the straits we're in now.

If we are foolish enough to keep paying attention to what they say, rather than what they do, their cynical misuse of our trust and the English language will have no limit. And neither will the injustice they can impose.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In his famous, and widely cheered, letter to the National Rifle Association, Attorney General John Ashcroft made the caveat that gun ownership can be restricted for "compelling state interests." But what, in this day of omnipresent government, does that mean? Note that Ashcroft did not say "protection of innocent people against violent criminals."

In theory, when evaluating a law that seems to infringe on a fundamental right, judges are supposed to examine whether the law in question is narrowly tailored to advance a truly "compelling state interest." Great injustice may be permitted, but only in a great cause. For example, during World War II, the Supreme Court ruled that internment of Japanese-Americans was allowable because of a "compelling state interest" -- the preservation of the nation in wartime. It was a decision that seems outrageous to most of us now, but was widely supported amid the tension of the war.

Other laws, that don't affect fundamental rights, are tested for whether they "reasonably" advance a "legitimate" state objective. As we see every day, there's virtually nothing the government doesn't consider its own "legitimate" objective -- such things as:

Forcing us to wear seatbelts Regulating how we can landscape our own properties Deciding whom we can hire to fix our roof Determining what substances we can put into our own bodies and Determining exactly what our children must be taught. Where the courts will draw the line on the Second Amendment remains to be seen; for most of the last century, judges have treated the individual right to own firearms as if it simply didn't exist. Only in the last few years have we seen even minimally favorable decisions (in the Emerson case). Given today's climate of government supremacy, there is still no adamant principle to prevent courts from deciding that the state has a "compelling interest" in "preventing an epidemic of gun violence," "protecting children" against firearms, tracking all citizens who own firearms (for "public safety"), requiring firearms to be locked up in a secure storage facility, etc., etc.,etc.

One thing we know for certain: It's clear (as the accompanying article shows), that both "right-" and "left-wing" politicians consider any restriction on firearms ownership to be compelling and in their interest.

In another portion of his statement to the NRA, Ashcroft gave, as an example of "compelling state interests," the authority to forbid convicted felons from owning firearms. But again, government mission creep makes even this reasonable- sounding authority far more dangerous than it appears. When felons were first forbidden to own firearms, a person usually had to commit terrible, violent criminal deeds to become a felon. Now you can make an error on EPA or IRS paperwork and be forbidden forever to own firearms -- without the slightest suspicion that you are a threat to anyone.

Indeed, when reporter David Holthouse examined every prosecution made under Colorado's Project Exile (a forerunner to the Bush administration's Project Safe Neighborhoods), he discovered that 154 of the 191 "gun criminals" targeted had no violent criminal records at all and two were merely illegal aliens (a civil offense) with no criminal record of any sort.2

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Examples are from a Cato Institute study, "There Goes the Neighborhood: The Bush-Ashcroft Plan to 'Help' Localities Fight Gun Crime," by Gene Healy, issued May 28, 2002 , and from "More Injustice on the Way" a June 12, 2002 column by Paul Craig Roberts

Published by: Jews For The Preservation of Firearms Ownership, Inc. P.O. Box 270143 Hartford, WI 53027

I don't believe the government has a right to take away any of our Rights protected in our Constitution.

That's why they must trick us into accepting the UN's constitution, and trash the only document existing that protects a Free People.

They are using our legal system against us, knowing that we can't afford to take them into "their" courts to defend their encrochment on our Rights.

Such as using the phony "Drug War" to steal our Right to privacy and protection against illegal search and seizure.

And using "Hate Crime Laws" to curb our Right to free speech.

And now bush is using "Terrorism" to change our form of government by creating a Cabinet level committee to rule over us. Along with the others that operate above our Constitution such as FEMA, ATF, DNR, FBI, IRS, Federal Reserve Bank and executive orders.

We can deal with any situation. We have Police to protect us from street criminals. We have the National Gaurd to help and protect us during emergencies. And we have our Military to protect us from terrorists and any other foreign threat.

The one thing we have not protected ourselves from is having the fox in the henhouse, and we are paying for that heavily.

I think I understand how the Colonists felt.

In other words You accept this as part of life and don't worry about it.

I hope I don't come off as trying to start a revolution, a revolution in ideas maybe but not with weapons ( they have much better toys than we do ). I just wish people would care enough to get involved and not accept status quo.

It's so meaningless to just be a herd of sheep.

I believe better things were meant for us, but we have been misled (intentionally)to accept less of a life for ourselves, so that others can prosper.

I don't believe I am better than anyone else, and likewise I don't believe anyone else has more of a right to take their next breath anymore than I do.

Regardless of their economic stature.

Have I missed something along the way?

Is equality and freedom just a carrot to hold in front of laborers to get more production. Is terrorism and war just ways to keep laborers in their place.

Or is there really a God who sees us the same, each just as important as the other.

I do cry quietly, because of the misery and pain I see coming to America. Misery and pain that has been planned to keep us in our place.

But I can't remain silent, not as long as there is a chance that others can see and care as much as I do. Because I believe that is our only chance to survive.

If we can come together as one, putting God ahead of man, I believe we can defeat this onslaught.

Either way, it is a test of what we can accept or not accept.

So even though I may cry, I can't remain silent.

Peace

"In other words You accept this as part of life and don't worry about it."

Until we get out of the UN, there isn't much we can do. When Bush can come up with a "Patriot Act" out of "nowhere" (LOL) and both sides sign it without reading it, something is wrong. In other words, both parties are working for the same goals. ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT.

We have these little victories and just get ecstatic thinking we are finally winning when the tide is going strongly against our Bill of Rights and the Constitution in our Courts and legislature.

It's so meaningless to just be a herd of sheep.

The public education system is the cause of this today. Imagine having a child doing extremely well in the public school system. Then you transfer him to a private or Catholic school and find out that he is in the under performance class.

The NEA came right out of the UN designed to dumb down the general public masses. It is working well. When only 25% of 4th graders know where the North Pole, South Pole and the equator are I know we are going downhill rapidly.

Just about anything with the name "heritage" attached to it is under the guidance of the UN. Our federal park system works from a manual put out by the UN. Our "Agenda 21" system is from the UN, as are just about every damn federal aid system we are paying for is.

Is terrorism and war just ways to keep laborers in their place.

Those and taxes do manage to keep us from building the strength to fight the federal government. Estate taxes are the one that seems to scare them the most. Imagine a young rebellious family that inherits 5 million dollars, or more. They would have the fight in them if it wasn't for taxes and federal controls.

Do I see hope? HONESTLY, I do not. My daughters, just in their young 20's, have decided not to have children. Why, not so they can continue educational studies or take time to mature before raising a couple of kids, but because they have searched for themselves and seen the degradation coming from the school systems they just left. Comparing it to the school system of Mom and Dad, they realize that they have been raped. Last year my wife dug out some old history books from the attic that she learned from in junior high and gave them to the girls. They were shocked and angry at the difference in educational material.

Select just a few larger adjectives and write them on a list. Keep it in your billfold. Anytime you have a conversation with youngsters, ask them to spell the words and give you a sentence using them. Then you will fully comprehend why todays kids speak using "like" four times in a paragraph. Notice in FR's postings the many times "to" is used when "too" and then "your" rather than "you're" is the proper word. Rarely do you see hypenated words in these postings. Why? I don't know.

I stay with FR because it is an ideal place to find the latest information and there is many very intelligent men and women here. You can ask almost any type of question and you will receive a very detailed answer with references for further studies from these members. Unfortunately, I and many others have noticed a serious decline in general reponses from a lot of the original members. Why? Again, I don't know. I have my suspicions but have never researched them to a firm opinion.

I'm sorry for taking You wrong.

Just going off your one reply, it appeared to me that You were going to accept what was offered, because dissention was useless.

You obviously see things pretty clearly.

That's all I want, for people to know the Truth and make educated decisions and not let politicians do their thinking for them.

If I knew 20 years ago what I know now, I would have never brought a child into this world. But I didn't, and I did, so now I try to open peoples eyes so that our children don't have to live as slaves.

Peace

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.