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.
Bush Administration Backs Individual RTKBA
Josey1
Member Posts: 9,598 ✭✭
Bush Administration Backs Individual Right to Bear Arms
Reversing the four-decade-long federal interpretation of the Second Amendment, the Bush administration has told the Supreme Court that it believes the Constitution protects an individual's right to bear arms.
Lawyers for the Department of Justice said the high court need not test that principle now.
"The current position of the United States ... is 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," Solicitor General Theodore Olson wrote in two court filings this week.
That right, however, is "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."
Olson, the administration's top Supreme Court lawyer, was reflecting the view of Attorney General John Ashcroft that the Second Amendment applies to private citizens, not merely to militias, the Associated Press reported today.
Ashcroft angered anti-gun-rights leftists when he expressed a similar statement in a letter to the National Rifle Association last year.
'Plain Meaning and Original Intent'
"While some have argued that the Second Amendment guarantees only a 'collective' right of the states to maintain militias, I believe the amendment's plain meaning and original intent prove otherwise," Ashcroft wrote.
In November, the attorney general sent a letter to federal prosecutors praising an appeals court decision that found "the Second Amendment does protect individual rights," but noting that those rights could be subject to "limited, narrowly tailored specific exceptions."
The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of appeals went on to reject arguments from Texas physician Timothy Emerson that a 1994 federal gun law was unconstitutional. The law was intended to deny guns to people under restraining orders.
"In my view, the Emerson opinion, and the balance is strikes, generally reflect the correct understanding of the Second Amendment," Ashcroft told prosecutors.
Olson's court filing Monday urged the high court not to get involved and acknowledged the policy change in a lengthy footnote. Olson attached Ashcroft's letter to prosecutors.
In the second case, a man was convicted of owning two machine guns in violation of federal law. The government also won a lower-court decision endorsing a federal gun control law.
The cases are Emerson vs. United States, 01-8780 and Haney vs. United States, 01-8272.
Here is the text of the Second Amendment: "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."
The Supreme Court last ruled on the scope of the Second Amendment in 1939, according to AP. The amendment protects only those rights that have "some reasonable relationship to the preservation of efficiency of a well regulated militia," the court opined then.
"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," fumed Michael D. Barnes, president of Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, the anti-gun-rights group associated with famous gun buyer Sarah Brady. http://www.newsmax.com/showinsidecover.shtml?a=2002/5/7/193345
"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
Reversing the four-decade-long federal interpretation of the Second Amendment, the Bush administration has told the Supreme Court that it believes the Constitution protects an individual's right to bear arms.
Lawyers for the Department of Justice said the high court need not test that principle now.
"The current position of the United States ... is 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," Solicitor General Theodore Olson wrote in two court filings this week.
That right, however, is "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."
Olson, the administration's top Supreme Court lawyer, was reflecting the view of Attorney General John Ashcroft that the Second Amendment applies to private citizens, not merely to militias, the Associated Press reported today.
Ashcroft angered anti-gun-rights leftists when he expressed a similar statement in a letter to the National Rifle Association last year.
'Plain Meaning and Original Intent'
"While some have argued that the Second Amendment guarantees only a 'collective' right of the states to maintain militias, I believe the amendment's plain meaning and original intent prove otherwise," Ashcroft wrote.
In November, the attorney general sent a letter to federal prosecutors praising an appeals court decision that found "the Second Amendment does protect individual rights," but noting that those rights could be subject to "limited, narrowly tailored specific exceptions."
The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of appeals went on to reject arguments from Texas physician Timothy Emerson that a 1994 federal gun law was unconstitutional. The law was intended to deny guns to people under restraining orders.
"In my view, the Emerson opinion, and the balance is strikes, generally reflect the correct understanding of the Second Amendment," Ashcroft told prosecutors.
Olson's court filing Monday urged the high court not to get involved and acknowledged the policy change in a lengthy footnote. Olson attached Ashcroft's letter to prosecutors.
In the second case, a man was convicted of owning two machine guns in violation of federal law. The government also won a lower-court decision endorsing a federal gun control law.
The cases are Emerson vs. United States, 01-8780 and Haney vs. United States, 01-8272.
Here is the text of the Second Amendment: "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."
The Supreme Court last ruled on the scope of the Second Amendment in 1939, according to AP. The amendment protects only those rights that have "some reasonable relationship to the preservation of efficiency of a well regulated militia," the court opined then.
"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," fumed Michael D. Barnes, president of Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, the anti-gun-rights group associated with famous gun buyer Sarah Brady. http://www.newsmax.com/showinsidecover.shtml?a=2002/5/7/193345
"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
"The Justice Department, reversing decades of official government policy on the meaning of the Second Amendment, told the Supreme Court for the first time late Monday that the Constitution 'broadly protects the rights of individuals' to own firearms. The position, expressed in a footnote in each of two briefs filed by Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson, incorporated the view that Attorney General John Ashcroft expressed a year ago in a letter to the National Rifle Association. Mr. Ashcroft said that in contrast to the view that the amendment protected only a collective right of the states to organize and maintain militias, he 'unequivocally' believed that 'the text and the original intent of the Second Amendment clearly protect the right of individuals to keep and bear firearms.' 'In its brief to the court of appeals, the government argued that the Second Amendment protects only such acts of firearm possession as are reasonably related to the preservation or efficiency of the militia. The current position of the United States, however, is 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.'"
"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
Basically, Olsons position is they beleive the right is an individual right, but they believe the(the government) can decide what weapons are appropriate to own.
How about we interpet the amendment the way it was intended, in that the Federal government CANNOT INFRINGE ON THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS.
Olson and Ashcrofts opinion is that the government can decide what arms can be restricted. Olson and Ashcroft draw the line on Assault weapons. How 'bout the next administration? They can decide that a shotgun or a pistol is suited for "criminal misuse" and can therefore be prohibited.
Once again, the Federal government assumes the roll of deciding how much a right can and should be restricted. They do not have the right to tell us how far our exercising of rights can go. The constitution restricts them from doing so.
Happiness is a warm gun
What I am concerned about now is building on Ashcroft's good will by getting across to him that the firearms most clearly protected by the Second Amendment are those suitable to militia use -- hence, guns with at least some military characteristics. Finally, we are getting past the "hunting and sport use" red herring.
- 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