More Guns for Everyone!

That would almost certainly be the result of a new and potentially tragic initiative by John Ashcroft's Justice Department. In a reversal of federal policy that has stood for more than 60 years, the department told the Supreme Court this week that individual Americans have a constitutional right to own guns.

The N.R.A. has seldom had a better friend in government than Mr. Ashcroft. That was proved again on Monday when the Justice Department, in a pair of briefs filed with the court, rejected the long-held view of the court, the Justice Department itself and most legal scholars that the Second Amendment protects only the right of state-organized militias to own firearms. Under that interpretation, anchored by a Supreme Court ruling in 1939, Congress and local governmental authorities have great freedom to regulate the possession and use of firearms by individuals.

In the briefs, submitted by Solicitor General Theodore Olson, the department boldly and gratuitously asserted, "The current position of the United States, however, is that the Second Amendment more broadly protects the right 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, 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."

The move was gratuitous because there was no need for the government to take a position on the Second Amendment in the two cases for which the briefs were submitted. In both cases the Justice Department is defending gun laws. In one case it agrees that a man under a restraining order because of domestic violence should not be allowed to have a gun, and in the other it is opposing the appeal of a man convicted of illegally possessing machine guns.

The reference in the briefs to restrictions on "firearms that are particularly suited to criminal misuse" is interesting, and disingenuous. No gun is more suited to criminal misuse than a handgun, and that's exactly the type of weapon that Mr. Ashcroft and his N.R.A. pals are trying to make available to more and more American men and women.

I had a .45-caliber pistol hanging low on my hip many years ago when I was in the Army. And I can tell you, I'm not anxious to think about that kind of weapon (or something smaller and easier to conceal) being in the pockets and the purses and the briefcases and the shoulder holsters of the throngs surrounding me in my daily rounds in Manhattan.

How weird is it that in this post-Sept.-11 atmosphere, when the Justice Department itself is in the forefront of the effort to narrow potential threats to security, the attorney general decides it would be a good idea to throw open the doors to a wholesale increase in gun ownership?

Mr. Ashcroft telegraphed this transparently political move nearly a year ago in a letter to the N.R.A, which just happened to have been a major Ashcroft campaign contributor. The letter went from Mr. Ashcroft, who was already the attorney general, to the N.R.A.'s chief lobbyist, James J. Baker. Mr. Ashcroft wrote, "Let me state unequivocally my view that the text and the original intent of the Second Amendment clearly protect the right of individuals to keep and bear firearms. 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."

Now that view is the policy of the Bush administration. It will encourage aficionados and accused criminals to challenge gun control laws on constitutional grounds.

"Now defendants are going to try to make this Second Amendment argument, relying in part on Ashcroft's position," said Mathew Nosanchuk, the litigation director for the Violence Policy Center, a Washington group that advocates gun control.

The center has pointed out that in 1999, the most recent year for which statistics are available, 28,874 Americans were killed with guns.

With the recent annoucement from the Bush adminstration reaffirming the Second Amendment as an individual, not a collective, right of all Americans, I figured it would only be a short time before the hit pieces began to appear. This one ran in this morning's Sarasota Herald-Tribune (SHT, for short -- runs on the gulf coast of Florida).

I will be writing a rebuttal letter to the editor today. I would appreciate any contructive comments and suggestions on how best to respond to this diatribe.

Incidentally, I have been keeping an archive of all gun-related articles published by this rag since the beginning of the year, and surprise, surprise, they are, year to day, 100% AGAINST firearms in their slant. Seeing as the SHT is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the NY Times, this comes as no surprise.

Towards years-end, I will be contacting their editorial staff to call them on this blatant bias and see what actions can be taken.

Mr. Herbert KNOWS his hoodlum friends and power-grabbing cronies can't maintain a chokehold on
*{insert your city's name here}* unless the citizens are terrified and disarmed: read "powerless to resist".

Remember the lessons of the Holocaust, the killing fields, and Stalin's butchery of the Ukrainians.

How weird is it ...when the Justice Department itself is in the forefront of the effort to narrow potential threats to security, the attorney general decides it would be a good idea to throw open the doors to a wholesale increase in gun ownership?

Nothing weird about narrowing potential threats with a gun. Here's a better question, Bob: how wierd is it to grant entry visas to Saudi "students", which has been going on wholesale as usual since 11 september?

Seems to me a gun might come in handy.

I'm not anxious to think about that kind of weapon (or something smaller and easier to conceal) being in the pockets and the purses and the briefcases and the shoulder holsters of the throngs surrounding me in my daily rounds in Manhattan.

But apparently he's okay with it being carried in the low-slung waistband of someone for whom the law is no impediment.

Welcome to the mind of an idiot, where criminal motivations are a random, spontaneous event, and everyone around you is just a neuron firing away from mass murder.

Last time I looked, the Constitution was written for the benefit of the people, guaranteeing INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. and clearly defines the limits of government.

The 2nd amendment is no different. For a change, Mr Ashcroft has done the right thing in defining the citizens do indeed have a 2nd Amendment right (not a privlige) to own firearms. His ruling clearly reiterates the citizens right to self determination and self defense as defined by the Constitution.

Of course anti gunners are upset. So what? They can't win every battle in their socialist agenda of disarmament. Of course, the socialists will do everything to discredit and smear legal gun owners. The anti gunners wanted engagement. The toes they stepped on are very much up to it.

But thinking about that, how likely would you be to try and mug someone, hmmmmm?

"...I'm not anxious to think about that kind of weapon (or something smaller and easier to conceal) being in the pockets and the purses and the briefcases and the shoulder holsters of the throngs surrounding me in my daily rounds in Manhattan."

You won't have to worry about those "throngs" carrying rounds if YOU yourself are armed, too. DUH!

I had a .45-caliber pistol hanging low on my hip many years ago when I was in the Army

So it was 'ok' for you to be able to carry a sidearm, even though most Army training is deficient in handgun proficiency, and yet you would deny anyone else the same ability to defend themselves?? What a hypocrite. Also, handguns are the simplest form of personal defense, THAT IS WHY THE POLICE CARRY THEM.

Can't help yopu with a rebuttal, since I feel that Bush & Ashcroft have done exactly the wrong thing here!

Don't you think that what Ashcroft has done is just what Clinton would have had Janet Reno do if he were certain that the SCOTUS would find the Second Amendment means exactly what it says, invalidating thousands of mickey mouse anti-gun laws?
Here' the Emerson case coming up, and Ashcroft has just said, "Shoot, you don't need to waste your time on that!"

Bob Greene's wrong: that sound you hear is the Brady Bunch cheering!

"In a reversal of federal policy that has stood for more than 60 years, the department told the Supreme Court this week that individual Americans have a constitutional right to own guns."

We all know the anti-self-defense folks due to their totalitarian natures, LIE. Do we've any legal beagles, who know what Heberts refering to here? The anti-self-defense drones are all repeating this same line.

One quick answer to this is everywhere else in the Bill of Rights, when "the people" are mentioned, it refers to individual rights, why wouldn't that be the case in the Second Amendment.

"I had a .45-caliber pistol hanging low on my hip many years ago when I was in the Army. And I can tell you, I'm not anxious to think about that kind of weapon (or something smaller and easier to conceal) being in the pockets and the purses and the briefcases and the shoulder holsters of the throngs surrounding me in my daily rounds in Manhattan."

People with this kind of thinking never cease to amaze me. Liberal elitists.

Why cant he stand the thought of "his" neighbors and friends having "concealable" handguns
I guess he knows "his" friends hearts and minds. Maybe he has a point.
(If he wears a hat maybe no one will notice.
I would be glad if everybody who is able has a concealed handgun...(bad guys are
well outnumbered by good guys imo...and experience, and fear and armed populace)
Bad guys fear an armed populace...So...if one fears an armed populace does that necessarily
make one a bad person?....ahhh..... No...as long as one doesn't try to stop the rest of us who are
willing and able to protect our loved ones and neighbors..and by the extension the sorry asses of the naysayers.

The center has pointed out that in 1999, the most recent year for which statistics are available, 28,874 Americans were killed with guns.

28,874 computes out to about 79 people per day. That number seems a little high, but then look where the stats come from, and also wonder how many were killed while commiting a crime. Out of the ones killed who were not criminals, how many could have been saved, if they or someone close to them had a gun available? How come those stats were not put forward? Truly a disengenuous editorial.

It will encourage aficionados and accused criminals to challenge gun control laws on constitutional grounds.

A sentence constructed with care and purpose . . .
aficionado = nut = criminal

"His ruling clearly reiterates the citizens right to self determination and self defense as defined by the Constitution."

Ashcroft's "ruling" has done nothing of any lasting good - it's not binding on any future administrations, and for that matter carries no more weight than any other lawyer's opinion in federal court cases!

What we needed was a Supreme Court decision affirming the Second Amendment, and Ashcroft is trying to STOP that!

You could mention that the title could be more rights for everyone, and the fact that if the justice dept actually had held the position for 60 years, that that position itself conflicts with what it had held for the previous 150 years, going back to the Framers. Except of course that they are also misrepresenting Miller, and should be called on that too.

This is the basic propaganda technique of "tell a lie long enough and people will begin to believe it"

The 1939 Miller case never determined a collective right. It simply said that the WEAPON (ie: firearm) must have some military usefulness in order to be protected by the second amendment. A quick reading of this case would make it apparent to anyone with the slightest objectivity.

Also of note was that Miller was tried in absentia by the Supreme Court. If he had been present and had competent representation, then he could have easily proven that the weapon in question (a sawed off shotgun) does in fact have some military use.

This case is cited again and again improperly, but it's an almost trivial point when compared to the 2nd amendment itself. The 2nd amendment is not written in some obscure language that people can not understand, and no court, even the supreme court, can change the Constitution with a ruling.

Ironically the Miller case wasn't really the reason that the "collective rights" propaganda caught on. The use of the Miller case being cited as a legal precedent INCORRECTLY and then being bandied about as PROOF of a collective right is really at fault.

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.