Posted on 05/07/2002 5:44:52 PM PDT by JDoutrider
Tuesday, May 7, 2002 Bush Administration Backs Individual Right to Bear Arms
Reversing the four-decade-long federal interpretation of the Second Amendment, the Bush administration has told the Supreme Court that it believes the Constitution protects an individual's right to bear arms.
Lawyers for the Department of Justice said the high court need not test that principle now.
"The current position of the United States ... is that the Second Amendment more broadly protects the rights of individuals, including persons who are not members of any militia or engaged in active military service or training, to possess and bear their own firearms," Solicitor General Theodore Olson wrote in two court filings this week.
That right, however, is "subject to reasonable restrictions designed to prevent possession by unfit persons or to restrict the possession of types of firearms that are particularly suited to criminal misuse."
Olson, the administration's top Supreme Court lawyer, was reflecting the view of Attorney General John Ashcroft that the Second Amendment applies to private citizens, not merely to militias, the Associated Press reported today.
Ashcroft angered anti-gun-rights leftists when he expressed a similar statement in a letter to the National Rifle Association last year.
'Plain Meaning and Original Intent'
"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," Ashcroft wrote.
In November, the attorney general sent a letter to federal prosecutors praising an appeals court decision that found "the Second Amendment does protect individual rights," but noting that those rights could be subject to "limited, narrowly tailored specific exceptions."
The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of appeals went on to reject arguments from Texas physician Timothy Emerson that a 1994 federal gun law was unconstitutional. The law was intended to deny guns to people under restraining orders.
"In my view, the Emerson opinion, and the balance is strikes, generally reflect the correct understanding of the Second Amendment," Ashcroft told prosecutors.
Olson's court filing Monday urged the high court not to get involved and acknowledged the policy change in a lengthy footnote. Olson attached Ashcroft's letter to prosecutors.
In the second case, a man was convicted of owning two machine guns in violation of federal law. The government also won a lower-court decision endorsing a federal gun control law.
The cases are Emerson vs. United States, 01-8780 and Haney vs. United States, 01-8272.
Here is the text of the Second Amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The Supreme Court last ruled on the scope of the Second Amendment in 1939, according to AP. The amendment protects only those rights that have "some reasonable relationship to the preservation of efficiency of a well regulated militia," the court opined then.
"This action is proof positive that the worst fears about Attorney General Ashcroft have come true his extreme ideology on guns has now become government policy," fumed Michael D. Barnes, president of Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, the anti-gun-rights group associated with famous gun buyer Sarah Brady.
You ever heard of a fella named James Riady?
Lawyers for the Department of Justice said the high court need not test that principle now."
Bullsh!t!
"Reversing the four-decade-long federal interpretation of the Second Amendment, the Bush administration has told the Supreme Court that it believes the Constitution protects an individual's right to bear arms.
Lawyers for the Department of Justice said the high courtneed not test that principle now. "
If not now, WHEN?
Would an appropriate time to address this be when the court is more liberal? Perhaps this court is too ready to again use a strict construction on the Second Amendment and would establish a Supreme Court precedent that it IS an individual Right!
I sincerely wish it that Bush wants to wait until he can appoint one or two truly conservative Justices before this type of case is brought before the Supremes.
While I am glad for these statements such as they are, I go by deeds, not words. Yes, this is much better than anything we could have expected if the Gorebot had stolen the election. And I sincerely hope that statist radicals like Micheal Barnes suffer debilitating strokes from their frustrations over news like this.
I reserve judgement, however, when I see terms like "reasonable restrictions" and the like. As another poster here has pointed out, that's a legal loophole big enough to drive a truck through, and after seeing how the 2nd Amendment has already been ridden over roughshod since before I was born, I am justifiably dubious.
Noumenon's remarks about a "Potemkin village" are apt. This is defined as "Something that appears elaborate and impressive but in actual fact lacks substance". The substance is in deeds. And I do not expect deeds to be forthcoming. The platitudes about "the high court need not test that principle now" do not inspire confidence. Cases like U.S. vs. Emerson do indeed need to go in front of the Supreme Court NOW. Copping out doesn't earn my respect, or my trust.
I will believe that these words, however comforting and refreshing on the surface, mean anything real when blatantly unconstitutional legislation like the 1994 "assault weapons" ban are allowed to sunset in 2004. Or when rogue agencies like the BATF and the FBI's HRT are reined in and held to task for the multitude of atrocities they have committed against American citizens.
Don't hold your breath. I sincerely hope I am wrong. Time will tell.
That would be deeds instead of words.
Needless to say, I won't be holding my breath.
L
Wasn't it the, now politically incorrect, Brer Rabbit story in which the rabbit begs not to be thrown into the briar patch when in fact that is what is desired?
Perhaps Ashcroft is taunting the Supreme Court by suggesting that their opinion isn't needed. Since the District Appeals Courts are not in agreement, the Supreme Court is duty bound to clarify this issue. Perhaps someone can remind me how many Justices must agree in order to grant "cert".
Sheesh
Yup. Right now I am about 40% for. When I see any budget reduced or any agency eliminated, I will get warm and fuzzy.
Meaning what? They're asking the Supreme Court to deny the Emerson appeal, but they're just kidding?
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.