Impact of altered gun policy uncertain

Washington Times ^ | Thursday, May 9, 2002 | By Frank J. Murray

[JohnHuang2]

Both sides in the long battle over the constitutional right to gun ownership fretted yesterday about how a new government policy disclosed in passing will play out in the courts.

Solicitor General Theodore Olson's typewritten footnotes in responses to two so-called "pauper appeals" abandon the government's militia-only view of gun ownership and say the Second Amendment provides individuals with the right to own guns.

[JohnHuang2]

Thursday, May 9, 2002

Quote of the Day by Common Tator 5/8/03

[Texasforever]

This opens almost all gun laws passed since 1939 to constitutional challange. This going to get very interesting. Olsen may be the "governments" lawyer but he also is required to argue cases within his own, now official, opinions. There will still be regulations so many will still be unhappy but in regard to the “gun-control” debate, this is an earthquake.

[JohnHuang2]

2nd Amendment ping...

[hoosierham]

The restraining orders,misdemeanor convictions and "particularly suited for criminal use" phrase together will still amount to a de facto gutting of the Second Admendment.

Wouldn't the compact and effective pocket pistol that I wish to carry for self-defense also be ideally suited to bank robbing?

Should the silly phrase "particularly suited for criminal use" be applied to cars ????!!!!

Only Vermont correctly reads the Second Admendment.

[Texasforever]

Should the silly phrase "particularly suited for criminal use" be applied to cars ????!!!!

The 65 year old debate between militia and the people has now shifted. The emphasis is now on the term "infringe".Is that not a step forward? BTW, no you will never have the "right" to own a nuclear bomb.

[BikerTrash]

But the question is, what do you do then with the militia clause?" Mr. Frey said.

Ooooh, that's a toughie!

Perhaps looking at U.S. Code as to who the militia is would help.

[PeaceBeWithYou]

"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."

To get Frey's interpretation it would have to be: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of the State, the right of Militia members to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

[PeaceBeWithYou]

With the Militia defined as agents of the State.

[M. T. Cicero II]

Indeed the milita clause has been the "central" interpretation by anti-self-defense individuals. But, clearly, it is the subordinant clause. You can change it to: "Ronald McDonald is a clown" and this does not change the "shall not infringe" clause. But if you change the "shall not infringe clause", the 2nd become meaningless. The only and obvious reason for the "militia" interpretation is to deny citizens a basic human right - a basic right of free men; the right to self-defense, and thus, to self-determination.

[RandallFlagg]

Well, I just sent two emails (one to Bush, one to Ashcroft) thanking them for this.

[Politically Correct]

BTW, no you will never have the "right" to own a nuclear bomb.

Oh Man!.....not even a small one?

[bvw]

Why not? Show us the law.

[MrB]

"That's not an implausible construction, although we believe it is superficial"

Mr. Frey obviously hasn't read what the signers of the Constitution had to say to each other about this. I guess, even if he had read the Federalist & Anti-Federalist papers, he would consider a constructionist view of the Constitution to be antiquated.

I have read most of the quotes pointing out that the 2nd applies to individuals ("the People"). Are there any quotes from the original intent documents upholding the collectivist viewpoint?

[packrat01]

Oh Man!.....not even a small one? (nuke)

Why can't I own nuclear weapons?

Maybe I'm old fashioned, but the well regulated Militia ought to be able to have nukes.

[bvw]

Re: nukes -- explain the Constitution's (in the body, noty the add-on Bill of Rights) meaning of "Letters of Marque and Reprisal" -- certainly some non-govermental private organiztions should be able to own and use nukes -- for example to protect their cargo shipping from some pirate haven, they should be able to nuke that pirate haven.

[packrat01]

Nobody indexing any more?

[Redbob]

"Mr. Olson's appeals put the Bush administration at odds with Supreme Court doctrine since 1939."

Horse-pucky!
In United States v. Verdugo-Urquirdez, 110 S. Ct. 3039 (1990) the Supreme Court unanimously held that the term "the people" in the Second Amendment had the same meaning as in the Preamble to the Constitution and in the First, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments,
i.e., that "the people" means at least all citizens and legal aliens while in the United States.

[Redbob]

BTW, am I the only one who sees this Justice Dept. decision as a bad thing?

This decision is binding only on the current administration, while a SCOTUS decision in for example Emerson would be binding throughout the land!

[jdege]

The appeals courts have been pretending that SCOTUS declared the second to protect a collective right since 1942, the DOJ has officially held that position since 1972, and unofficially since 1964.

SCOTUS, on the other hand, has been mostly silent.

[MeekOneGOP]

bump!