[Oldeconomybuyer]

Rush mentioned this today...Good work by the Bush administration.

[JohnGalt]

Style over substances, but still a nice bone to toss those who are wondering where the ship is heading.

[Patriotman]

The key case involved a Texas man named Timothy Joe Emerson who was indicted for possession of a Beretta pistol while he was the subject of a domestic violence restraining order obtained by his wife. A federal district judge dismissed the indictment on the grounds that it violated Emerson's Second Amendment rights, but the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the lower court judge and ordered Emerson to be tried on the charge.

In its ruling, the appeals court included a lengthy discussion of the Second Amendment, concluding that the amendment "protects the rights of individuals, including those not actively a member of any militia . . . to privately possess and bear their own firearms, such as the pistol involved here, that are suitable as personal, individual weapons." It was this view that Olson's briefs explicitly endorsed.

But the appeals court also ruled that the Second Amendment is subject to "limited, narrowly tailored specific exceptions or restrictions . . . that are reasonable and not inconsistent with the right of Americans generally to keep and bear their private arms as historically understood in this country." It said the prohibition on gun ownership by someone subject to a domestic violence restraining order was such a reasonable exception, a view that Olson also endorsed in urging that the Supreme Court not to review the case.

[arkfreepdom]

Rush mentioned this today...Good work by the Bush administration.

That must have hurt Rusho.

[Hard Case]

Hollow rhetoric. It is also apt to change with every new administration. Let look at the most telling statement:

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."

So if the government grants itself the authority put restrictions on it, then it is not truly a right. Agree? Next they want to restrict certain firearms that are particular to criminal use. I'm guessing they are talking about the NFA. So the implication is that criminals prefer these weapons. The only time I see these weapons on the news they are in the hands of the ATF, FBI, DEA, etc. So in essence they have labelled their own alphabet soup JBTs as criminals.

Bottom line, if they can regualte it, it is not a right. "Shall not be infringed" must have meant something else a couple hundred years ago.