Posted on 05/13/2002 4:51:59 AM PDT by rw4site
Attorney General John Ashcroft caused gun control nuts and assorted liberals to go ballistic last week by his radical assertion that, yes, the Second Amendment does indeed guarantee individuals the right to keep and bear arms.
That's exactly what most law-abiding, gun-owning people of this nation have believed all along. Apparently it was news to nanny-state proponents and other pantywaists around the country, even though the Second Amendment was ratified more than 200 years ago on December 15, 1791.
From some of the reactions, you would have thought the sky was falling:
"So now Attorney General John Ashcroft thinks he gets to rewrite the Constitution to reflect his personal opinions. His pronouncement this week that the 2nd Amendment guarantees individuals the right to own guns, despite six decades of federal policy and U.S. Supreme Court decisions to the contrary, is another audacious move by a man who mistakenly thinks his job is to make, not enforce, the law," opined The Los Angeles Times.
"Ashcroft has compared the gun ownership right with the First Amendment's protection of speech -- which can be limited only in a fashion narrowly tailored to accomplish compelling state interests. If that's the model, most federal gun laws would sooner or later fall," warned The Washington Post in an editorial on Friday.
More realistically, the National Rifle Association called Ashcroft's position a "breath of fresh air" to freedom-loving gun owners.
The meaning of the Second Amendment has been a matter of controversy throughout its history. If only its authors had spent a little more time on it.
The amendment states: "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."
Does that mean citizens have a "collective" right to own guns only so states can have well-regulated militias; that citizens can possess guns only for the purpose of serving in militias?
I don't know about you, but I've never known a member of the National Guard to take his or her own M-16 to summer camp.
Or does the Second Amendment mean that a citizen's basic right to keep and bear arms -- a right Americans enjoyed before there was a Constitution or a Bill of Rights -- cannot be infringed upon because states may someday need to call them up for service in a militia? Legal scholars remain divided.
Based on writings of the time, Ashcroft believes the Second Amendment was understood to mean that individual citizens had a basic right to keep and bear arms. Individuals in the 18th century needed guns to hunt and for their protection. And they need them for their protection today.
Ashcroft is saying that the last six decades of federal policy and court decisions on gun ownership have been too narrow. He is saying that the Second Amendment protects the right of gun ownership beyond what is reasonably related to the preservation or efficiency of the militia.
In a footnote filed with a legal brief to the Supreme Court, Ashcroft's position is explained as understanding 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, 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."
Naturally, the gun control bunch doesn't like Ashcroft's Second Amendment position. It's a step backward for them. The true agenda of the gun control crowd is to eliminate individual ownership of guns, all guns, of any description. That includes granddad's favorite shotgun that hasn't been fired in 50 years.
And most liberals in this country prefer collective rights to individual rights. For them it may be OK -- but just barely OK -- to own a gun if it's strictly used for militia purposes. But individual rights often appear too dangerous for the safety, or best interests, of the greater society.
What liberals and gun control advocates should do is take a little breather. The sky is not falling. Count on the Justice Department to continue to enforce existing gun laws. Your next door neighbor is not going to bring home a 155mm howitzer.
All Ashcroft has done is to make individual Americans a little more free.
It is a breath of fresh air. But, of course, the Supreme Court can always take another view.
[Well buried] In a footnote filed with a legal brief to the Supreme Court, Ashcroft's position is explained as understanding 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, 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."
In other words, the administration has thrown us gun nuts a sugar tit platitude about individual gun rights, one we've always known, -- and restated their 'right' to restrict possession. - TO INFRINGE. -
A great victory, for doublespeak.
I bring my own AR-15 to drill all the time.
The "militia" referred to in the 2nd amendment meant "able bodied men between the ages of 14 and 45", but did not say you had to sell your guns when you hit the big 46.
The 2nd amendment almost didn't make it because some thought it was so basic a right that it didn't need to be included.
the scary thing is some on the right will shout
Victory for this .
if the sheeple are led to believe that this is a right given to them, it will be taken away..
I would like to believe (although I'm not holding my breath), that Bush intends to "take a dive" on the "particularly suited" issue. "We studied the issue, and found that no one gun is 'particularly suited' (or unsuited) for crime. The concept was just a new, phony concept dreamed up by gun-grabbers as another excuse. The presence or absence of a bayonet lug or flash hider doesn't make a gun 'particularly suited'".
The "unsuited individuals" has more meaning. If you are in jail, or escaped from jail, you've already lost your rights to lots of things, at least for the duration. Same thing for someone on probation or parole, at least for certain types of crimes. Pay your debt to society, and get all your rights back, including gun rights.
It's the new "restraining orders" that are suspect, because the gun grabbers seem to use them to produce a lifetime ban on charges that may be chickenshit, or even false. It should only be on a temporary basis, until a more serious charge is either prosecuted to conviction, or the whole thing dropped.
The socialist know they cannot instill their "dream" (communist) government until they disarm the masses. The communist/socialist (now the Democrats) began their infiltration into our education system in the 1920s and 30s. I don't know what they think of their success, but IMHO (in my humble opinion)they have gained far too much. The information is on the WWW. Run a good search engine and check for "public schools socialism" or "education communism."
This Link is one I found that seems to give a fair account of how it is/was happening.
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.