In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Brady Center Blasts DOJ's Official ReversalofRTKBA
Josey1
Member Posts: 9,598 ✭✭
Brady Center Blasts Ashcroft's Official Reversal of the Justice
Department's Longstanding Position on the Second Amendment
To: National Desk
Contact: Amy Stilwell of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun
Violence, 202-898-0792
WASHINGTON, May 7 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Michael D. Barnes,
president of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, today
blasted U.S. Attorney General Ashcroft's official reversal of the
United State's long-standing position on the Second Amendment. The
new position -- which was included as a footnote in two U.S.
Department of Justice (DOJ) briefs that were filed with the U.S.
Supreme Court on Monday, May 6 -- reflects Ashcroft's personal view
that the Second Amendment "broadly protects the rights of
individuals" to possess firearms. This directly contradicts the
Justice Department's position of more than 40 years that the Second
Amendment confers a collective right to bear arms in the context of
a state-sponsored militia.
"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 Barnes. "His new
position represents a radical departure from the Justice
Department's unwavering interpretation of the Second Amendment
spanning at least four decades, an interpretation that has
prevailed in the U.S. Supreme Court and every federal appeals
court, with the sole exception of the renegade decision in U.S. v.
Emerson.
"The Attorney General's actions will place strong gun laws at
risk by making them more difficult to defend. Indeed, the National
Rifle Association (NRA) has openly stated that it will use a
changed U.S. position to challenge the constitutionality of
common-sense gun laws. This action is a step backward in the fight
to prevent gun violence. It will only hinder efforts to defend and
enforce reasonable gun laws against attack by the extremist gun
lobby."
The Department's new policy weakens the federal government's
defense of gun laws, to the benefit of the criminal defendants who
are challenging them. Incredibly, the Attorney General has
directed U.S. Attorneys across the nation to refrain from making
the strongest argument available in defense of those laws against
Second Amendment attack; that is, that the Second Amendment confers
a collective right to bear arms in the context of a state-sponsored
militia.
The militia interpretation is the view expressed by every
federal circuit except the Fifth Circuit, yet Justice Department
attorneys are henceforth barred from making that argument.
Instead, the Justice Department now will invite federal judges to
make their own judgments about whether the gun law at issue is
"reasonable." As seen in the Emerson case, Judge Sam Cummings, a
federal district court judge, did not think it reasonable to bar
Timothy Joe Emerson from possessing guns, even though Emerson had
threatened his wife and child with a pistol, owned an arsenal of
weapons, and had a domestic violence restraining order against him.
A list of Supreme Court and lower federal court decisions that
have rejected the "individual rights" view of the Second Amendment,
and in-depth information on the Second Amendment can be found on
the Brady Center Legal Action Project Web site at
http://www.gunlawsuits.org.
Background:
The U.S. Supreme Court, and every federal appeals court in the
country, except one, has consistently rejected the gun lobby's
ill-founded attempt to read the militia clause out of the Second
Amendment. As the Supreme Court concluded more than 60 years ago,
in United States v. Miller (1939), the 'obvious purpose' of the
Second Amendment was 'to assure the continuation of and render
possible the effectiveness' of the state militia, and it 'must be
interpreted and applied with that end in view.'
For decades, the NRA and others opposed to common-sense gun laws
have waged a campaign of misinformation, claiming that their
"individual rights" interpretation of the Second Amendment
invalidates many gun control measures. In 1991, former Chief
Justice Warren Burger called the gun lobby's deception "one of the
greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word 'fraud,' on the
American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in
my lifetime."
http://www.usnewswire.com
-0-
/U.S. Newswire 202-347-2770/
05/07 17:58
Copyright 2002, U.S. Newsw http://www.usnewswire.com/topnews/first/0507-144.html
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
Department's Longstanding Position on the Second Amendment
To: National Desk
Contact: Amy Stilwell of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun
Violence, 202-898-0792
WASHINGTON, May 7 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Michael D. Barnes,
president of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, today
blasted U.S. Attorney General Ashcroft's official reversal of the
United State's long-standing position on the Second Amendment. The
new position -- which was included as a footnote in two U.S.
Department of Justice (DOJ) briefs that were filed with the U.S.
Supreme Court on Monday, May 6 -- reflects Ashcroft's personal view
that the Second Amendment "broadly protects the rights of
individuals" to possess firearms. This directly contradicts the
Justice Department's position of more than 40 years that the Second
Amendment confers a collective right to bear arms in the context of
a state-sponsored militia.
"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 Barnes. "His new
position represents a radical departure from the Justice
Department's unwavering interpretation of the Second Amendment
spanning at least four decades, an interpretation that has
prevailed in the U.S. Supreme Court and every federal appeals
court, with the sole exception of the renegade decision in U.S. v.
Emerson.
"The Attorney General's actions will place strong gun laws at
risk by making them more difficult to defend. Indeed, the National
Rifle Association (NRA) has openly stated that it will use a
changed U.S. position to challenge the constitutionality of
common-sense gun laws. This action is a step backward in the fight
to prevent gun violence. It will only hinder efforts to defend and
enforce reasonable gun laws against attack by the extremist gun
lobby."
The Department's new policy weakens the federal government's
defense of gun laws, to the benefit of the criminal defendants who
are challenging them. Incredibly, the Attorney General has
directed U.S. Attorneys across the nation to refrain from making
the strongest argument available in defense of those laws against
Second Amendment attack; that is, that the Second Amendment confers
a collective right to bear arms in the context of a state-sponsored
militia.
The militia interpretation is the view expressed by every
federal circuit except the Fifth Circuit, yet Justice Department
attorneys are henceforth barred from making that argument.
Instead, the Justice Department now will invite federal judges to
make their own judgments about whether the gun law at issue is
"reasonable." As seen in the Emerson case, Judge Sam Cummings, a
federal district court judge, did not think it reasonable to bar
Timothy Joe Emerson from possessing guns, even though Emerson had
threatened his wife and child with a pistol, owned an arsenal of
weapons, and had a domestic violence restraining order against him.
A list of Supreme Court and lower federal court decisions that
have rejected the "individual rights" view of the Second Amendment,
and in-depth information on the Second Amendment can be found on
the Brady Center Legal Action Project Web site at
http://www.gunlawsuits.org.
Background:
The U.S. Supreme Court, and every federal appeals court in the
country, except one, has consistently rejected the gun lobby's
ill-founded attempt to read the militia clause out of the Second
Amendment. As the Supreme Court concluded more than 60 years ago,
in United States v. Miller (1939), the 'obvious purpose' of the
Second Amendment was 'to assure the continuation of and render
possible the effectiveness' of the state militia, and it 'must be
interpreted and applied with that end in view.'
For decades, the NRA and others opposed to common-sense gun laws
have waged a campaign of misinformation, claiming that their
"individual rights" interpretation of the Second Amendment
invalidates many gun control measures. In 1991, former Chief
Justice Warren Burger called the gun lobby's deception "one of the
greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word 'fraud,' on the
American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in
my lifetime."
http://www.usnewswire.com
-0-
/U.S. Newswire 202-347-2770/
05/07 17:58
Copyright 2002, U.S. Newsw http://www.usnewswire.com/topnews/first/0507-144.html
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
Comments
PC=BS
Mudge the fed up
I can't come to work today. The voices said, STAY HOME AND CLEAN THE GUNS!
Since courts operate on precedent, any federal cases in states where this is still undecided would have to consider the earlier federal high court decision and possibly follow its lead. Given all the factors in play now, I would say that any 2nd Amendment court cases would be much more likely to go our way now, short of a Supreme Court ruling, and even a Supreme Court ruling at this point might agree with the district court that has already defined the RTKBA as an individual citizen's right. This is great news. Once the citizen militia concept has finally been decisively defined, the next domino to come crashing down will be the one that reverberates the loudest -- the one that says a citizen desiring militia-quality armament must have a gun designed appropriately for a militiaman -- i.e., not a hunting rifle or a sporter, but a weapon to help effectively assure the security of a free state. That means small arms with modern characteristics that gun banners have been doing their best to steal from us -- from hi-cap mags to you name it.
All this business about "too many military features for import" has been crazy from the start. Dare I, a law abiding American patriot, say that the ideal weapon for properly exercizing one's rights under the Second Amendment is doubtless an assault rifle? Oops, the truth just creeped out.
- Life NRA Member
If dishonorable men shoot unarmed men with army guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and not by general deprivation of constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
Attorney General Ashcroft have come true: his extreme ideology on
guns has now become government policy," said Barnes.
How, exactly, does that differ from one of "their" liberal's "extreme ideology"? Just because they lost, and don't know when to quit.
And, correct me if I'm wrong, but hasen't this been government policy, well....since the constitution has been drafted?