Ashcroft affirms individual right to bear arms

AP Yahoo ^ | 5/8/02 | Anne Gearan

[ncson]

Sure you can have my guns ..... LEAD FIRST!

[eureka!]

index

[Carry_Okie]

At the same time, the administration's top Supreme Court lawyer said the high court need not test that principle now.

This is not good news; we needed that test.

[Sir Gawain]

How hard is it to understand the Constitution?

including persons who are not members of any militia

The people are the militia.

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.

Types of guns suited to criminal misuse? This is the same logic the gungrabbers use.

[montag813]

Olson, the administration's top Supreme Court lawyer, was reflecting the view of Attorney General John Ashcroft (news - web sites) that the Second Amendment confers the right to "keep and bear arms" to private citizens and not merely to the "well-regulated militia" mentioned in the amendment's text.

What is all the fuss about this? Seems pretty obvious. Was it REALLY the position of former administrations to state the opposute? Bizarre.

[Alas]

Praisee GOD!!! And thank you AG John Ashcroft.

[hchutch]

Only after we have stacked the court to rule our way. One or two more like Scalia and Thomas, to replace Stevens and Ginsburg.

[skeeter]

The AG supports the right of Americans to keep & bare arms, so what.

What should REALLY concern us is his personal distaste for nude art! (/sarcasm)

[Kobyashi1942]

Praisee GOD!!! And thank you AG John Ashcroft.

Talk is cheap. Ashcroft speaks with forked tounge. Here he says that I can bear arms and in the next breath he is trying to support the ban on semi-automatics. I still have contempt for the gun grabber.

[Shooter 2.5]

Talk is cheap. So what are we going to do about it? I suggest that everyone join one of the gun groups as soon as possible. There's going to be a huge amount of work to be done in the next couple of months.

[vannrox]

Unless this issue is addressed by the Supreme Court, there is no guarantee that an election would significantly alter this interpetation. It is not good enough to just say that the Constitution means what it says. We need to lock the meaning in STONE.

[Grut]

The current position of the United States ... is that the Second Amendment...

Apparently, the current position of the United States is that the meaning of the Constitution's provisions is a matter for the Executive Branch to decide, since "Olson's court filing Monday urged the high court not to get involved [with Emerson]."

This is not good. In fact, it's a classic sop to the Right which can be abandoned as soon as it becomes inconvenient. Ashcroft is doing nothing to officially drop the 'militia' interpretation and in fact seems to be intent on keeping Emerson from being heard and possibly becoming the law of the land.

[drc43]

And this means WHAT to the gun grabbers in Chicago?

[wardaddy]

I'm no expert on judicial semantics but at least they are making a pretense of being pro-RKBA. The proof will be in the pudding. I wish they had the stones to start challenging all the encroachments of the past 40 years.

However, as one previous poster opined..it might be better to wait for a stacked SCOTUS.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

We'll have the opportunity in the next four or five years, if we get rid of Wellstone, Carnahan, and a few more like-minded leftists.

[wardaddy]

I hope so. Gun rights being in the constituion clearly defined...are not a local matter.

[Grut]

The proof will be in the pudding.

This is the pudding!

[wardaddy]

Well then it's a tastier pudding than a Gore/Daschle flavored one. Not precisely to my liking but sure beats the alternative. I would prefer no gun laws period. An armed society is a polite one.

[Jesse]

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."

Your observation bears repeating. This position is a loophole you could drive a semi through, exactly the same thing the gun grabbers keep saying to justify more restrictions, and not supportive of the "individual right to bear arms" viewpoint at all. In addition, who defines what "unfit" is? BATF? If this is the view that the Bush administration has of the Second Amendment, then Bush will sign additional gun control legislation as it reaches his desk, including renewal of the assault weapon ban.

But actions speak louder than words. Bush administration really doesn't believe in an individual right to bear arms, since it doesn't believe airline pilots are fit to carry into their cockpits the kind of gun overwhelmingly suited to criminal use...the handgun.

Bush is a Clinton in compassionate conservatives clothing when it comes to domestic policy. You Bushbots out there should finally start to get very worried.

[Steve0113]

"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," said Michael Barnes, president of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, which promotes gun control.

Cool.