Skip to comments.
Ashcroft affirms individual right to bear arms
AP Yahoo ^
| 5/8/02
| Anne Gearan
Posted on 05/08/2002 7:28:03 AM PDT by ncson
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-30 next last
Sure you can have my guns ..... LEAD FIRST!
1
posted on
05/08/2002 7:28:04 AM PDT
by
ncson
To: bang_list
index
2
posted on
05/08/2002 7:30:07 AM PDT
by
eureka!
To: ncson;*bang_list;DanfromMichigan
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.
To: ncson
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.
To: ncson
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.
5
posted on
05/08/2002 7:37:15 AM PDT
by
montag813
To: ncson
Praisee GOD!!! And thank you AG John Ashcroft.
6
posted on
05/08/2002 7:47:07 AM PDT
by
Alas
To: Carry_Okie
Only after we have stacked the court to rule our way. One or two more like Scalia and Thomas, to replace Stevens and Ginsburg.
7
posted on
05/08/2002 7:56:46 AM PDT
by
hchutch
To: ncson
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)
8
posted on
05/08/2002 7:57:12 AM PDT
by
skeeter
To: Alas
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.
To: Kobyashi1942; All
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.
To: ncson
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.
11
posted on
05/08/2002 8:32:19 AM PDT
by
vannrox
To: ncson
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.
12
posted on
05/08/2002 8:32:52 AM PDT
by
Grut
To: ncson
And this means WHAT to the gun grabbers in Chicago?
13
posted on
05/08/2002 8:39:48 AM PDT
by
drc43
To: ncson
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.
14
posted on
05/08/2002 9:39:24 AM PDT
by
wardaddy
To: wardaddy
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.
To: Eric in the Ozarks
I hope so. Gun rights being in the constituion clearly defined...are not a local matter.
16
posted on
05/08/2002 10:23:49 AM PDT
by
wardaddy
To: wardaddy
The proof will be in the pudding. This is the pudding!
17
posted on
05/08/2002 10:51:36 AM PDT
by
Grut
To: Grut
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.
18
posted on
05/08/2002 11:16:11 AM PDT
by
wardaddy
To: Sir Gawain
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.
19
posted on
05/08/2002 11:28:25 AM PDT
by
Jesse
To: ncson
"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.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-30 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