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.
Statement Of Violence Policy Center In Response To
Josey1
Member Posts: 9,598 ✭✭
Statement Of Violence Policy Center In Response To Supreme Court
Refusal To Hear Second Amendment Cases
To: National Desk
Contact: Naomi Seligman of the Violence Policy Center
202-822-8200 ext. 105 or nseligman@vpc.org
WASHINGTON, June 10 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Today the Supreme Court
denied review in two cases in which criminal defendants had asked
the high court to strike down federal gun laws on Second Amendment
grounds. In briefs filed in Emerson v. United States and Haney v.
United States, the Ashcroft Justice Department announced a
180-degree shift in the Department's interpretation of the Second
Amendment, arguing for an expansive individual rights
interpretation of the Amendment. At the same time, the Justice
Department asked the Court to reject the defendants' petitions for
review. In response to the Supreme Court's action today, Mathew
Nosanchuk, the Violence Policy Center's litigation director and
legislative counsel, issued the following statement:
"Today's Supreme Court action is a victory for public safety and
security and a defeat for the National Rifle Association and gun
criminals, who have been chomping at the bit for the Supreme Court
to overrule its own precedent on the Second Amendment. By
declining to hear the Emerson and Haney cases, the Supreme Court-as
it has done repeatedly for decades-once again refused to reopen the
question of whether the Second Amendment protects an expansive
individual right to keep and bear arms that is unrelated in any way
to service in the 'well regulated militia' cited in the Second
Amendment. In its unanimous 1939 decision in United States v.
Miller, the Court held unambiguously that the 'obvious purpose' of
the Second Amendment was to 'assure the continuation and render
possible the effectiveness' of the militia, and '(i)t must be
interpreted and applied with that end in view.'
"Today's action by the Supreme Court reaffirms, the Ashcroft
Justice Department's policy shift notwithstanding, that the Miller
decision remains the law of the land-and it continues to be
followed in the lower courts. The Ashcroft Justice Department
completely ignored Miller in its Supreme Court briefs, and the NRA
has argued that Miller means something other than what it says. If
the lower courts have been misreading Miller for 63 years-as the
NRA and pro-gun advocates believe-the Supreme Court has had ample
opportunity to correct the error. Once again, it has declined to
do so.
"Thankfully, the Justices do not share Attorney General John
Ashcroft's enthusiasm for reinterpreting the Second Amendment.
Unfortunately, criminal defendants and the gun lobby can be
expected to rely on the non-binding and ill-advised statements
contained in the Ashcroft Justice Department's Emerson and Haney
briefs in their efforts to overturn our nation's gun laws."
For more information please contact Naomi Seligman at
202.822.8200 X105 or visit the VPC's websites www.vpc.org and
www.ashcroftgunwatch.org.
http://www.usnewswire.com
-0-
/U.S. Newswire 202-347-2770/
06/10 14:30
Copyright 2002, U.S. Newswire http://www.usnewswire.com/topnews/first/0610-136.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
Refusal To Hear Second Amendment Cases
To: National Desk
Contact: Naomi Seligman of the Violence Policy Center
202-822-8200 ext. 105 or nseligman@vpc.org
WASHINGTON, June 10 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Today the Supreme Court
denied review in two cases in which criminal defendants had asked
the high court to strike down federal gun laws on Second Amendment
grounds. In briefs filed in Emerson v. United States and Haney v.
United States, the Ashcroft Justice Department announced a
180-degree shift in the Department's interpretation of the Second
Amendment, arguing for an expansive individual rights
interpretation of the Amendment. At the same time, the Justice
Department asked the Court to reject the defendants' petitions for
review. In response to the Supreme Court's action today, Mathew
Nosanchuk, the Violence Policy Center's litigation director and
legislative counsel, issued the following statement:
"Today's Supreme Court action is a victory for public safety and
security and a defeat for the National Rifle Association and gun
criminals, who have been chomping at the bit for the Supreme Court
to overrule its own precedent on the Second Amendment. By
declining to hear the Emerson and Haney cases, the Supreme Court-as
it has done repeatedly for decades-once again refused to reopen the
question of whether the Second Amendment protects an expansive
individual right to keep and bear arms that is unrelated in any way
to service in the 'well regulated militia' cited in the Second
Amendment. In its unanimous 1939 decision in United States v.
Miller, the Court held unambiguously that the 'obvious purpose' of
the Second Amendment was to 'assure the continuation and render
possible the effectiveness' of the militia, and '(i)t must be
interpreted and applied with that end in view.'
"Today's action by the Supreme Court reaffirms, the Ashcroft
Justice Department's policy shift notwithstanding, that the Miller
decision remains the law of the land-and it continues to be
followed in the lower courts. The Ashcroft Justice Department
completely ignored Miller in its Supreme Court briefs, and the NRA
has argued that Miller means something other than what it says. If
the lower courts have been misreading Miller for 63 years-as the
NRA and pro-gun advocates believe-the Supreme Court has had ample
opportunity to correct the error. Once again, it has declined to
do so.
"Thankfully, the Justices do not share Attorney General John
Ashcroft's enthusiasm for reinterpreting the Second Amendment.
Unfortunately, criminal defendants and the gun lobby can be
expected to rely on the non-binding and ill-advised statements
contained in the Ashcroft Justice Department's Emerson and Haney
briefs in their efforts to overturn our nation's gun laws."
For more information please contact Naomi Seligman at
202.822.8200 X105 or visit the VPC's websites www.vpc.org and
www.ashcroftgunwatch.org.
http://www.usnewswire.com
-0-
/U.S. Newswire 202-347-2770/
06/10 14:30
Copyright 2002, U.S. Newswire http://www.usnewswire.com/topnews/first/0610-136.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