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.
SAF.ORG Hails Justice Dept. Reversal on 2nd Amendm
Josey1
Member Posts: 9,598 ✭✭
Foundation Hails Justice Dept. Reversal on 2nd Amendment
U.S. Newswire
8 May 15:14
Justice Dept. Reversal On Second Amendment Hailed By Gun Rights
Foundation
To: National Desk
Contact: Alan Gottlieb of the Second Amendment Foundation,
425-454-7012; Web site: http://www.saf.org
BELLEVUE, Wash., May 8 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The Justice
Department's enlightened interpretation of the Second Amendment as
an individual right was hailed today by the firearms civil rights
organization that has supported a key Texas case that led to a
federal appeals court ruling upholding the individual rights
concept.
"Solicitor General Ted Olson took the correct position by
advising the Supreme Court that the Second Amendment protects the
rights of individuals to possess their private firearms, regardless
whether they are in a militia," said Dave LaCourse, public affairs
director for the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF).
SAF has been the driving force in the case of U.S. v. Emerson,
which challenges the constitutionality of a federal law that
prohibits gun ownership by citizens under civil divorce court
restraining orders, even if they have not been convicted of a
crime. A Texas district court judge ruled the law violated the
Second Amendment rights of Dr. Timothy Joe Emerson (who has since
been acquitted of all charges in state court). The Clinton/Reno
Justice Department appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court in New
Orleans, which last year reversed and remanded Emerson's case back
to the Texas court, while at the same time affirming District Judge
Sam Cummings' ruling that the Second Amendment is an individual
right.
Anti-gun groups have blasted the Emerson Decision, and the
Justice Department's reversal of its long-standing position that
the Second Amendment only protects a collective right of states to
organize militias. They insist that several federal court decisions
support their position.
"Federal courts, and even the Supreme Court, have been wrong on
issues before," LaCourse noted. "If we were to blindly accept what
anti-gunners argue, then we would still be bound by the Supreme
Court's Dred Scott decision in the 1850s that held slavery was
legal.
"Today's constitutional scholars, including Prof. Laurence
Tribe, confirm that the Second Amendment is an individual right,"
LaCourse continued. "For years, our own Justice Department has been
deaf and blind to such scholarship, and the Fifth Circuit ruling
forced the government to face the facts. Solicitor General Olson
and Attorney General John Ashcroft deserve credit for their
courageous reversal of four decades of constitutional denial."
http://www.usnewswire.com
-0-
/U.S. Newswire 202-347-2770/
05/08 15:14
Copyright 2002, U.S. Newswire http://www.usnewswire.com/topnews/first/0508-140.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
U.S. Newswire
8 May 15:14
Justice Dept. Reversal On Second Amendment Hailed By Gun Rights
Foundation
To: National Desk
Contact: Alan Gottlieb of the Second Amendment Foundation,
425-454-7012; Web site: http://www.saf.org
BELLEVUE, Wash., May 8 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The Justice
Department's enlightened interpretation of the Second Amendment as
an individual right was hailed today by the firearms civil rights
organization that has supported a key Texas case that led to a
federal appeals court ruling upholding the individual rights
concept.
"Solicitor General Ted Olson took the correct position by
advising the Supreme Court that the Second Amendment protects the
rights of individuals to possess their private firearms, regardless
whether they are in a militia," said Dave LaCourse, public affairs
director for the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF).
SAF has been the driving force in the case of U.S. v. Emerson,
which challenges the constitutionality of a federal law that
prohibits gun ownership by citizens under civil divorce court
restraining orders, even if they have not been convicted of a
crime. A Texas district court judge ruled the law violated the
Second Amendment rights of Dr. Timothy Joe Emerson (who has since
been acquitted of all charges in state court). The Clinton/Reno
Justice Department appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court in New
Orleans, which last year reversed and remanded Emerson's case back
to the Texas court, while at the same time affirming District Judge
Sam Cummings' ruling that the Second Amendment is an individual
right.
Anti-gun groups have blasted the Emerson Decision, and the
Justice Department's reversal of its long-standing position that
the Second Amendment only protects a collective right of states to
organize militias. They insist that several federal court decisions
support their position.
"Federal courts, and even the Supreme Court, have been wrong on
issues before," LaCourse noted. "If we were to blindly accept what
anti-gunners argue, then we would still be bound by the Supreme
Court's Dred Scott decision in the 1850s that held slavery was
legal.
"Today's constitutional scholars, including Prof. Laurence
Tribe, confirm that the Second Amendment is an individual right,"
LaCourse continued. "For years, our own Justice Department has been
deaf and blind to such scholarship, and the Fifth Circuit ruling
forced the government to face the facts. Solicitor General Olson
and Attorney General John Ashcroft deserve credit for their
courageous reversal of four decades of constitutional denial."
http://www.usnewswire.com
-0-
/U.S. Newswire 202-347-2770/
05/08 15:14
Copyright 2002, U.S. Newswire http://www.usnewswire.com/topnews/first/0508-140.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