Skip to comments.
Justice Dept. Reverses Policy on Meaning of Second Amendment
NYTimes ^
| May 7, 2002
| By LINDA GREENHOUSE
Posted on 05/07/2002 2:21:39 PM PDT by greydog
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-37 next last
1
posted on
05/07/2002 2:21:39 PM PDT
by
greydog
To: bang_list
BANG
2
posted on
05/07/2002 2:23:19 PM PDT
by
Djarum
To: greydog
HOOOOAAAH!!!!
To: greydog
Leave it to the NYT to come up with such a headline.
To: Djarum
Ashcroft for Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
5
posted on
05/07/2002 2:31:30 PM PDT
by
elbucko
To: greydog
Yeah. The headline confused me too. I didn't think Ashcroft had changed his stance on the issue. I could tell right away it must be a good thiing because the Noo Yawk Times didn't like it.
To: shooter 2.5
ping!
7
posted on
05/07/2002 2:34:41 PM PDT
by
basil
To: elbucko
Ashcroft for Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
Not so fast: "...to restrict the possession of types of firearms that are particularly suited to criminal misuse."
That allows for a continuation of Brady and NFA. Ashcroft is close, but still not a 2nd Amendment absolutist.
8
posted on
05/07/2002 2:35:09 PM PDT
by
Djarum
To: greydog
It's a good start, "reversing" decades of lies and idiocy. Let's see how far back towards freedom we will swing.
9
posted on
05/07/2002 2:35:14 PM PDT
by
Sender
To: basil; all
Solicitor General Olson urged the Supreme Court to turn down both appeals. He said that even accepting an individual right to bear arms, the application of the laws at issue in both cases reflected the kind of narrowly tailored restrictions by which that right could reasonably be limited. Consequently, there was no warrant for the court to take either case, the briefs said.
With all due respect to Mr. Olson, he is dead wrong on the issue and this "policy shift" is merely an attempt to deflect criticism from their position that the SCOTUS should not hear the Emerson appeal.
Having read both opinions and the brief filed to SCOTUS, the larger issue is the standard of review employed by the 5th Circuit. They went out of their way to demonstrate why the Second Amendment is a fundamental individual right - and then analyzed the offending statute using a rational basis standard. That is the wrong standard of review for a fundamental individual right. The correct standard is strict scrutiny - and 90% of the current laws will not pass that type of review.
Further, the statute makes it a crime to posess or transfer a firearm once you are subject to a protective order - the only way not to violate the statute is to divest yourself of all firearms prior to the order being issued. That means you can be summarily deprived of an individual right and subject to incarceration without due process because if you don't divest prior to a hearing and the order is issued you cannot take any action without committing a crime. (Unless you are willing to not return to your domocile until after the order expires)
Mr. Olsen is dead wrong - the appeal should be heard and the government's position on the law (unless they admit it is unconstitutional) is dead wrong
10
posted on
05/07/2002 2:36:47 PM PDT
by
Abundy
To: all
Better titled:
Justice Dept. CORRECTS a previously erroneous policy on 2nd Amendment.
Attorney General Ashcroft and ricer1
(picture circa Aug. 1996)
11
posted on
05/07/2002 2:40:52 PM PDT
by
ricer1
To: greydog
There have been many naysayers and conservative critics of the Bush Administration on FR over the last 16 months. Here is solid evidence that we have elected the right man, and that right man has appointed the right people.
Something George W. Bush understands is that change on contentious issues is incremental. The country will not support radical change. However, radical change can be effected through a series of much smaller changes.
The Democrats have long understood incremental change and have used it effectively to achieve their goals. Bush shows he understands their game and is turning their game against them. Smart politicians learn quickly from their opponents.
To: basil
Thanks for the ping. This is one baby step toward freedom. When I can buy the property that I want, use it and keep it that's when I'll rejoice. Oddly enough, that crack about weapons that criminals might use are the ones that the military and militia are using.
To: greydog
The Supreme Court's view has been that the the Second Amendment protected only those rights that have "some reasonable relationship to the preservation of efficiency of a well regulated militia," as the court put it in United States v. Miller, a 1939 decision that remains the court's latest word on the subject. What they don't mention is that the case considered any military issue personal arm to fulfill that requirement: like machine guns and battle rifles.
14
posted on
05/07/2002 3:08:38 PM PDT
by
lepton
To: greydog
n October, the federal appeals court in New Orleans, saying it did not find the Miller decision persuasive, That's a lie. They didn't find the later manglings of the Miller decision pursuasive. Ones which claimed the Miller decision said things that literate people could not find in it.
15
posted on
05/07/2002 3:10:05 PM PDT
by
lepton
To: Shooter 2.5
"...that crack about weapons that criminals might use are the ones that the military and militia are using."Nope. Not unless the military is now using .22 pistols, old S&W .38s and sawn-off Ruger 10/22s.
To: greydog
More evidence, within an endless stream of evidence, that
there isn't a tinkers d*mn of difference between Clinton/Gore and George Bush!
Posted to alleviate the pounding, apoplectic hearts of the Bush Bashers.
To: Djarum
That allows for a continuation of Brady and NFA. Ashcroft is close, but still not a 2nd Amendment absolutist. Not only that it sets precedent that both parties agree the right to keep and bare arms can indeed be infringed upon. This policy is closer to what the Dems were pushing 15-20 years ago than any conservative position on the Second Ammendment. We've lowered our standards to theirs it seems. Slowly but surely the two parties are catching up with each other.
To: greydog
subject to reasonable restrictions designed to prevent possession by unfit persons.
"And whatever happened to the words, Shall not be infringed, when you place restrictions upon a persons Constitutional rights for any reason(s) then the true intent of the Second Amendment is not being met".
After all, in the eyes of our government are not we all lacking the ability to do for ourself what we ask them to do for us, ie: Social Security, Welfare, Education, Health Care and on. Does this make us unfit?
19
posted on
05/07/2002 4:57:52 PM PDT
by
180grain
To: greydog
Has Linda Greenhouse gone to the orthodontist yet?
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-37 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson