Posted on 05/08/2002 11:57:58 AM PDT by Patriotman
White House reverses stand on right to bear arms
Associated Press
Washington — Reversing decades of Justice Department policy, the Bush administration has told the Supreme Court that it believes the Constitution protects an individual's right to possess firearms.
At the same time, the administration's top Supreme Court lawyer said the case need not test that principle now.
The administration's view represents a reversal of government interpretations of the Second Amendment going back some 40 years.
"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."
Mr. Olson, the administration's top Supreme Court lawyer, was reflecting the view of Attorney-General John Ashcroft 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.
Mr. Ashcroft caused a stir when he expressed a similar sentiment a year ago in a letter to the National Rifle Association.
"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," Mr. Ashcroft wrote.
Critics accused him of kowtowing to the gun lobby and of undermining federal prosecutors by endorsing a legal view 180 degrees away from what has been official Justice Department policy through four Democratic and five Republican administrations.
At the time that Mr. Ashcroft wrote the letter, it was unclear whether he was expressing his personal view or stating a new policy position for the government. That question was mostly answered last November, when he sent a letter to federal prosecutors praising an appellate court's decision that found "the Second Amendment does protect individual rights" but noting that those rights could be subject to "limited, narrowly tailored specific exceptions."
That opinion by 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 judicial restraining orders.
"In my view, the Emerson opinion, and the balance it strikes, generally reflect the correct understanding of the Second Amendment," Mr. Ashcroft told prosecutors.
Mr. Emerson appealed to the Supreme Court, putting the Justice Department in an awkward position. Although the government won its case in the lower court using the old interpretation of the Second Amendment, Mr. Ashcroft had switched gears by the time the case reached the high court.
Mr. Olson's court filing on Monday urged the Supreme Court not to get involved and acknowledged the policy change in a lengthy footnote. Mr. Olson also attached Mr. Ashcroft's letter to prosecutors.
Mr. Olson made the same notation in a separate case involving a man convicted of owning two machine guns in violation of federal law. In that case, the government also won a lower-court decision endorsing a federal gun-control law.
The Justice Department issued a statement Tuesday night saying its latest comments reflect the Attorney-General's position in the November letter to prosecutors.
"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.
Mr. Barnes noted that other federal appeals courts and the Supreme Court have not found the same protection for individual gun ownership that the 5th Circuit asserted in the Emerson case.
The Supreme Court last ruled on the scope of the Second Amendment in 1939, when it said the clause protects only those rights that have "some reasonable relationship to the preservation of efficiency of a well-regulated militia."
This is akin to a government official in 1905 saying the Indians got a raw deal. Wake me up when a single piece of federal anti-gun law goes away or isn't replaced with something worse.
At least two of us actually read the press release. Too damn bad that folks think it is good news to learn that this administration thinks our right are theirs to dole out as they see fit.
-- But best you get help quick.
Restraining orders, injunctions -- who needs them?</Appropriate tag>
True,but this one DOES have to do with the second amendment,and is such a obvious violation that any rational court would have no choice but to address this issue as it pertains to the BOR's. It's the "camel's nose under the tent".
Holding the opposite really brought discredit to the rule of law. People began to see the ever more nuanced and convoluted opinions in the 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th Amendment cases proscribing Government mischief and leaving the clearly written 2nd Amendment as a nullity as clearly Judicial Tyranny, to be twisted by whatever Activist Judges are currently on the High Court.
For its own respect, and the Rule of Law, a way must be found to harmonize Constitutional treatment of ALL the Bill of Rights.
Are restraining orders and injunctions unconstitutional?
If you wanted to know all about the Big Bang, you'd ring up Carl Sagan, right? And if you wanted to know about desert warfare, the man to call would be Norman Schwarzkopf, no question about it. But who would you call if you wanted the top expert on American usage, to tell you the meaning of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution?
That was the question I asked A.C. Brocki, editorial coordinator of the Los Angeles Unified School District and formerly senior editor at Houghton Mifflin Publishers — who himself had been recommended to me as the foremost expert on English usage in the Los Angeles school system. Mr. Brocki told me to get in touch with Roy Copperud, a retired professor of journalism at the University of Southern California and the author of American Usage and Style: The Consensus.
A little research lent support to Brocki's opinion of Professor Copperud's expertise.
Roy Copperud was a newspaper writer on major dailies for over three decades before embarking on a a distinguished 17-year career teaching journalism at USC. Since 1952, Copperud has been writing a column dealing with the professional aspects of journalism for Editor and Publisher, a weekly magazine focusing on the journalism field.
He's on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, and Merriam Webster's Usage Dictionary frequently cites him as an expert. Copperud's fifth book on usage, American Usage and Style: The Consensus, has been in continuous print from Van Nostrand Reinhold since 1981, and is the winner of the Association of American Publisher's Humanities Award.
That sounds like an expert to me.
After a brief telephone call to Professor Copperud in which I introduced myself but did not give him any indication of why I was interested, I sent the following letter:
"I am writing you to ask you for your professional opinion as an expert in English usage, to analyze the text of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, and extract the intent from the text.
"The text of the Second Amendment is, 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'
"The debate over this amendment has been whether the first part of the sentence, 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State', is a restrictive clause or a subordinate clause, with respect to the independent clause containing the subject of the sentence, 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'
"I would request that your analysis of this sentence not take into consideration issues of political impact or public policy, but be restricted entirely to a linguistic analysis of its meaning and intent. Further, since your professional analysis will likely become part of litigation regarding the consequences of the Second Amendment, I ask that whatever analysis you make be a professional opinion that you would be willing to stand behind with your reputation, and even be willing to testify under oath to support, if necessary."
My letter framed several questions about the test of the Second Amendment, then concluded:
"I realize that I am asking you to take on a major responsibility and task with this letter. I am doing so because, as a citizen, I believe it is vitally important to extract the actual meaning of the Second Amendment. While I ask that your analysis not be affected by the political importance of its results, I ask that you do this because of that importance."
After several more letters and phone calls, in which we discussed terms for his doing such an analysis, but in which we never discussed either of our opinions regarding the Second Amendment, gun control, or any other political subject, Professor Copperud sent me the follow analysis (into which I have inserted my questions for the sake of clarity):
[Copperud:] "The words 'A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,' contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 26, 1991, constitutes a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying 'militia,' which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject 'the right', verb 'shall'). The to keep and bear arms is asserted as an essential for maintaining a militia.
"In reply to your numbered questions:
[Schulman:] "(1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to 'a well-regulated militia'?"
[Copperud:] "(1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people."
[Schulman:] "(2) Is 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms' granted by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second Amendment assume a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear arms, and merely state that such right 'shall not be infringed'?"
[Copperud:] "(2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia."
[Schulman:] "(3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well regulated militia, is, in fact necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed' null and void?"
[Copperud:] "(3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence."
[Schulman:] "(4) Does the clause 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,' grant a right to the government to place conditions on the 'right of the people to keep and bear arms,' or is such right deemed unconditional by the meaning of the entire sentence?"
[Copperud:] "(4) The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia."
[Schulman:] "(5) Which of the following does the phrase 'well-regulated militia' mean: 'well-equipped', 'well-organized,' 'well-drilled,' 'well-educated,' or 'subject to regulations of a superior authority'?"
[Copperud:] "(5) The phrase means 'subject to regulations of a superior authority;' this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military."
[Schulman:] "(6) (If at all possible, I would ask you to take account the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was written 200 years ago, but not take into account historical interpretations of the intents of the authors, unless those issues can be clearly separated."
[Copperud:] "To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the amendment. If it were written today, it might be put: "Since a well-regulated militia is necessary tot he security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged.'
[Schulman:] "As a 'scientific control' on this analysis, I would also appreciate it if you could compare your analysis of the text of the Second Amendment to the following sentence,
"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.'
"My questions for the usage analysis of this sentence would be,
"(1) Is the grammatical structure and usage of this sentence and the way the words modify each other, identical to the Second Amendment's sentence?; and
"(2) Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict 'the right of the people to keep and read Books' only to 'a well-educated electorate' — for example, registered voters with a high-school diploma?"
[Copperud:] "(1) Your 'scientific control' sentence precisely parallels the amendment in grammatical structure.
"(2) There is nothing in your sentence that either indicates or implies the possibility of a restricted interpretation."
Professor Copperud had only one additional comment, which he placed in his cover letter: "With well-known human curiosity, I made some speculative efforts to decide how the material might be used, but was unable to reach any conclusion."
So now we have been told by one of the top experts on American usage what many knew all along: the Constitution of the United States unconditionally protects the people's right to keep and bear arms, forbidding all governments formed under the Constitution from abridging that right.
As I write this, the attempted coup against constitutional government in the Soviet Union has failed, apparently because the will of the people in that part of the world to be free from capricious tyranny is stronger than the old guard's desire to maintain a monopoly on dictatorial power.
And here in the United States, elected lawmakers, judges, and appointed officials who are pledged to defend the Constitution of the United States ignore, marginalize, or prevaricate about the Second Amendment routinely. American citizens are put in American prisons for carrying arms, owning arms of forbidden sorts, or failing to satisfy bureaucratic requirements regarding the owning and carrying of firearms — all of which is an abridgement of the unconditional right of the people to keep and bear arms, guaranteed by the Constitution.
And even the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), staunch defender of the rest of the Bill of Rights, stands by and does nothing.
It seems it is up to those who believe in the right to keep and bear arms to preserve that right. No one else will. No one else can. Will we beg our elected representatives not to take away our rights, and continue regarding them as representing us if they do? Will we continue obeying judges who decide that the Second Amendment doesn't mean what it says it means but means whatever they say it means in their Orwellian doublespeak?
Or will be simply keep and bear the arms of our choice, as the Constitution of the United States promises us we can, and pledge that we will defend that promise with our lives, our fortuned, and our sacred honor?
(C) 1991 by The New Gun Week and Second Amendment Foundation. Informational reproduction of the entire article is hereby authorized provided the author, The New Gun Week and Second Amendment Foundation are credited. All other rights reserved.
J. Neil Schulman is the award-winning author of novels endorsed by Anthony Burgess and Nobel-economist Milton Friedman, and writer of the CBS Twilight Zone episode in which a time-traveling historian prevents the JFK assassination. He's also the founder and president of SoftServ Publishing, the first publishing company to distribute "paperless books" via personal computers and modems.
Most recently, Schulman has founded the Committee to Enforce the Second Amendment (CESA), through which he intends to see the individual's right to keep and bear arms recognized as a constitutional protection equal to those afforded in the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth amendments.
J. Neil Schulman may be reached through:
Mail address:
GEnie address: SOFTSERV
softserv@genie.geis.com
No you are conservative enough. Don't confuse being conservative with being a pitchfork waving, John Birch Society, Huey Long populist, Lew Rockwell reading nutcase. There is a big difference.
Your comments are sickening, and part of the reason we are dealing with this to begin with.
Really? I'm one of the "you folks" who was doing this?
I guess it just depends on the ox being gored huh?
The "ox" I care about is America,and I freely admit I don't like to see her gored.
So much for "principle" when it comes to the bashers. LMAO
My farts have more principle than you do.
Well judging by the brain-farts you confuse with thinking, I can see where you might believe that.
If that happened (fat chance), Bush and the REAL Americans in office would be GUARANTEED re-election. Meantime, the gun-grabbing, socialist, have-to-be-paid-for-by-taxpayers-because-they-never-learned-to-get-a-real-job politicians would be thrown out the door.
That scenario is still a far dream, but one can still hope.
"Emerson" has nothing to do with restraining orders or injunctions. It has to do with Emerson being denied his Constitutional Rights to own or be in possession of a firearm. The restraining order was just the "vehicle" that drove it to that point.
Posted by Texasforever to exodus
On News/Activism May 7 0:29 AM # 361
The Constitution is precise. - exodus
In your OPINION. You read it in the context of your own world view and many others do the same. Look. We are arguing in circles. I agree that if California wants to legalize medical pot they should be allowed too.
I also agree that if California decides it does not like guns, and they must since their constitution does not protect the right to own them that is also an issue between the state and its population.
If California has a CONSTITUTIONAL right to legalize drugs under the 10th amendment, -
--then California has a CONSTITUTIONAL right to ban guns under the 10th. It is just that simple. -- Texasforever --
You are a Bush-Bot who worships a New England yankee because you think he's a Texan,yet you accuse somebody else of being confused?
I think you have been drinking too much of your namesake. Meet TPAINE he drinks the same stuff.
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.