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.
Schumer Fumes At Gun Reversal
Josey1
Member Posts: 9,598 ✭✭
Schumer Fumes At Gun Reversal
U.S. argues for wider ownership
By Elaine S. Povich and Tom Brune
WASHINGTON BUREAU
May 9, 2002
Washington - Gun control advocates, led by Sen. Charles Schumer, yesterday said the Bush administration's move to bolster the rights of gun owners under the Second Amendment to the Constitution could make it harder to enforce firearm laws.
In a reversal of more than 60 years of legal precedent, Solicitor General Theodore Olson argued in a Supreme Court case that the Second Amendment "broadly protects the rights of individuals, including persons who are not members of any militia or engaged in active military service" to own and carry guns.
Schumer said this position runs counter to Attorney General John Ashcroft's sworn testimony at his confirmation hearing last year and could have an adverse impact on federal and state gun regulations.
"Has the Justice Department considered how state laws will be impacted?" said Schumer (D-N.Y.). "As for New York, we require strict licensing and registration of handguns. And for good reason. Not to put too fine a point on it, but if New York City had Arizona's gun laws, Times Square would look like the OK Corral. And that's not OK."
In footnotes to two legal briefs filed with the Supreme Court on the government's behalf this week, Olson, the government's top Supreme Court lawyer, emphasized that the Second Amendment guarantees individuals, including those not in the military, the absolute right to "possess and bear their own firearms."
The meaning of the "militia" clause in the Second Amendment has long been debated. It 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."
Justice Department spokeswoman Barbara Comstock said yesterday that the department "has a solemn obligation both to enforce federal laws and to respect the constitutional rights guaranteed to law-abiding Americans."
"In these two cases, the department has fulfilled its commitment to defend vigorously the constitutionality of federal laws which restrict ownership of machine guns and bar individuals subject to domestic violence restraining orders from possessing firearms," she said.
Schumer accused Ashcroft of quietly trying to bend the law to his liking without public and congressional input.
"To make such a broad policy change in such a sly way is no way to make policy at all," Schumer said, adding that he wrote Ashcroft seeking an explanation. Ashcroft had expressed similar sentiments in a letter to the National Rifle Association last year. The NRA did not return a phone call seeking comment yesterday.
Matthew Bennett, spokesman for Americans for Gun Safety, a nonprofit group that advocates handgun restrictions, said the footnotes raise questions about the enforceability of gun laws and, importantly, leaves open the question about whether new gun laws could be enforced.
"It's not clear what, if any laws, would fall outside that [definition] and would, in their view, be unconstitutional," he said.
During his confirmation hearing last year, Ashcroft acknowledged the different views of the Second Amendment but said as attorney general it was not up to him to resolve the dispute but to enforce laws as they exist.
Copyright c 2002, Newsday, Inc. http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-usguns092699770may09.story
"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
U.S. argues for wider ownership
By Elaine S. Povich and Tom Brune
WASHINGTON BUREAU
May 9, 2002
Washington - Gun control advocates, led by Sen. Charles Schumer, yesterday said the Bush administration's move to bolster the rights of gun owners under the Second Amendment to the Constitution could make it harder to enforce firearm laws.
In a reversal of more than 60 years of legal precedent, Solicitor General Theodore Olson argued in a Supreme Court case that the Second Amendment "broadly protects the rights of individuals, including persons who are not members of any militia or engaged in active military service" to own and carry guns.
Schumer said this position runs counter to Attorney General John Ashcroft's sworn testimony at his confirmation hearing last year and could have an adverse impact on federal and state gun regulations.
"Has the Justice Department considered how state laws will be impacted?" said Schumer (D-N.Y.). "As for New York, we require strict licensing and registration of handguns. And for good reason. Not to put too fine a point on it, but if New York City had Arizona's gun laws, Times Square would look like the OK Corral. And that's not OK."
In footnotes to two legal briefs filed with the Supreme Court on the government's behalf this week, Olson, the government's top Supreme Court lawyer, emphasized that the Second Amendment guarantees individuals, including those not in the military, the absolute right to "possess and bear their own firearms."
The meaning of the "militia" clause in the Second Amendment has long been debated. It 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."
Justice Department spokeswoman Barbara Comstock said yesterday that the department "has a solemn obligation both to enforce federal laws and to respect the constitutional rights guaranteed to law-abiding Americans."
"In these two cases, the department has fulfilled its commitment to defend vigorously the constitutionality of federal laws which restrict ownership of machine guns and bar individuals subject to domestic violence restraining orders from possessing firearms," she said.
Schumer accused Ashcroft of quietly trying to bend the law to his liking without public and congressional input.
"To make such a broad policy change in such a sly way is no way to make policy at all," Schumer said, adding that he wrote Ashcroft seeking an explanation. Ashcroft had expressed similar sentiments in a letter to the National Rifle Association last year. The NRA did not return a phone call seeking comment yesterday.
Matthew Bennett, spokesman for Americans for Gun Safety, a nonprofit group that advocates handgun restrictions, said the footnotes raise questions about the enforceability of gun laws and, importantly, leaves open the question about whether new gun laws could be enforced.
"It's not clear what, if any laws, would fall outside that [definition] and would, in their view, be unconstitutional," he said.
During his confirmation hearing last year, Ashcroft acknowledged the different views of the Second Amendment but said as attorney general it was not up to him to resolve the dispute but to enforce laws as they exist.
Copyright c 2002, Newsday, Inc. http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-usguns092699770may09.story
"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
JBB
I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, and I won't be laid a hand on. I don't do these things to other people and I require the same from them.
PC=BS
What an unvarnished horse's *. And a grossly ignorant one, at that.
If New York City had Arizona's gun laws, Times Square probably WOULD look like the OK Corral; for the 10 minutes it would take for honest New York State gun owners to drive the dealers and pimps out for good.
Sounds like the "bend over, grab your ankles, and give 'em what they want" approach to muggings is an all-encompassing moral policy for some people. God, it must be sad.
without public or congressional imput". Mr Schumer has been trying to do that for the last 20 years.
I love it.
Have Gun, will travel
With your writing skills, I say go for it....
Bruce
That'll do. You get the idea.
Mudge the vindictive
I can't come to work today. The voices said, STAY HOME AND CLEAN THE GUNS!
Super post, SP!
Saxon, I agree that you should write an editorial stateing what was in your previous comments...New York Times perhaps, that should rile New Yorkers to a point not seen since John Rocker.
While I allready sent in my own views on this atter I encourage others to do the same.S.P.,what you posted above deserves to be heard by the residents of NY.Please take a minute to repost it to the editor,Thank you,Josey.
"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
The Big Lie has been in place so long that many reasonable men began to believe it. It's not their fault. Part of sanity is dealing with things as they are. But of course we've always known that if the 2nd Amendment meant citizen militia, it also meant modern militia arms -- black rifles, hi-cap mags, short barrels on carbines, and the rest. We've always known that these things followed like the night the day the correct interpretation, or should I say the "black print," of the Second Amendment. I'd say we've been pretty well "infringed," in the absence of a Constitutional court challenge, over the years.
I was thinking the same thing about the hypocritical Schumer remark about trying to sneak law past proper public and court review. How dare he make such a remark. His speechwriter made a cleverism with the OK corral not being OK, but that's all it is. Does he really expect that proper gun freedoms and concealed carry ANYWHERE are going to cause law abiding citizens to suddenly lose their moral senses and go off looking for Black Bart? What it might do is change the rules of the game for criminals in New York, and that would not be a bad thing, though it would certainly be something new. Perpetrators who live by working the system like a game of Monopoly are going to cry foul if they get threatened or shot while so doing -- too bad, eh? "Hey, he wuz s'posed to let me * the money! Now whad'm I gonna do when I * out the hospital, work? Sheeee-iiii...."
Before we break out the champagne, let's all remember that the Brady bunch thought they were in heaven too until the Democrats lost the White House.
As much as I would like to believe that 9/11 has finally brought thinking men to their senses regarding the continuing rock-solid validity of the Second Amendment in a life where social conditions are destined to change, I believe we will have to make our gains while sun shines rather than assume this is a lasting "sea change."
The good news is that even the anti-gunners have been afraid of a thoroughly researched court case on the Amendment. The NRA has too, but only in a Democrat-appointed non-objective court. The founding fathers and the courts alike have been opining in our favor for the last 200 years. The rulings have never been codified into one overriding court decision -- instead they've been used in pieces, as debate references and quotes for the NRA as it fights the endless brush fires. The hopeful part of this current environment is that if we can get some of this new practicality carved into the law books while the getting is good, we can have some semi-permanent changes that the founding fathers would finally approve of. We can actually have a popular interpretation of the Second Amendment that is what they meant it to be in spirit all along. Or at least we can get some laws passed, sunsetted, and repealed that run afoul of the Amendment.
- 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
prostitutes and even worse. BUT, he must protect them for the vote for him. Do you expect him to allow law abiding people to shoot them?
Hell no, it would be another vote lost. Crime, welfare, food stamps,
and the likes are the big thing in cities with a certain type population. The vote counts. Same as in other type cities in the
country.
keep lots of extra uppers for your ar..you can change often enough to keep the thing from over heating...what ever caliber fits the moment..~Secret Select Society of Suave Stylish Smoking Jackets~
http://travelor223.tripod.com
"Guns don't kill people, people kill people"
~Secret Select Society Of Suave Stylish Smoking Jackets~
~Secret Select Society Of Suave Stylish Smoking Jackets~