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: There'sa right to bear arms, but not inNY
Josey1
Member Posts: 9,598 ✭✭
SCHUMER CRITICIZES NEW DOJ DECISION TO CHANGE CONSTITUTIONAL DEFINITION OF GUN OWNERS
Schumer: Ashcroft Decision Betrays Promise "To Follow Letter of the Law" Made During His Controversial Confirmation Hearings
Changing Definition of 2nd Amendment Could Undermine State, Local Gun Laws, End Vital Legal Protections That Reduced Gun Violence, Crime
US Senator Chuck Schumer today criticized the Justice Department's sudden change of interpretation of the Second Amendment, after decades of long-held policy. For over sixty years, the Justice Department has interpreted the Second Amendment as applying to those with a reasonable relationship to a well regulated militia. Now, in a stunning reversal of long-held policy, the Justice Department has argued before the Supreme Court that the Constitution broadly protects the rights of individuals to own firearms.
Schumer made the following statement at a press conference today:
"Yesterday, the Justice Department used footnotes in two Supreme Court briefs to announce a massive change of course in our nation's gun control policy. For the first time in 60 years, the federal government is saying that the right to bear arms is an individual right.
"This decision wasn't made after discussion, debate, and open dialogue. It wasn't made in consultation with Congress and the states. And it wasn't put forward with the kind of detail and analysis that such a significant policy shift would usually come with. Instead, it was done undercover, buried in footnotes.
"The broad principle that there is an individual right to bear arms is shared by many Americans, including myself. I'm of the view that you can't take a broad approach to other rights, such as First Amendment rights, and then interpret the Second Amendment so narrowly that it could fit in a thimble.
"But I'm also of the view that there are limits on those rights. Just as you can't falsely shout fire in a crowded movie theater, you can put restrictions on who can own guns and how, when, and where they may be possessed.
"At his confirmation hearings, Attorney General Ashcroft swore to enforce and defend all existing federal gun laws. He said, `I understand that being Attorney General means enforcing the law as they are written, not enforcing my personal preferences.'
"He also said, `I believe that there are constitutional inhibitions on the rights of citizens to bear certain kinds of arms, and some of those I would think good judgment -- some of those I would think bad judgment. But as attorney general it is not my judgment to make that kind of call. My judgment, my responsibility, is to uphold the acts of the legislative branch of this government in that arena, and I would do so and continue to do so in regard to the cases that now exist, and further enactments of the Congress.'
"The case that now exists is the United States v. Miller from 1939. In that case, the Supreme Court said that the Second Amendment protects only those rights that have some reasonable relationship to the preservation of efficiency of a well regulated militia.
"During his confirmation hearings, John Ashcroft made it abundantly clear that he would enforce the law as it is written, not as he'd like it to be. What happened to that pledge? It's hard to look his actions and not question whether he's going back on his word.
"The vote to confirm John Ashcroft's nomination was close, both in committee and in the Senate. Many members of my party who voted to confirm him based their decision on his commitment to follow the letter of the law. I wonder how they feel right now. I wonder if this is what they had in mind.
"The Justice Department is saying that the right to bear arms is subject to "reasonable restrictions." But the devil, as always, is in the details.
"Is the federal ban on assault weapons a reasonable restriction? Is the federal ban on felons owning firearms a reasonable restriction?
"We should know where Attorney General Ashcroft is on these questions but we don't. And we don't know precisely because this was done undercover of darkness, and not through an open process.
"The impact of this policy change is startling. Has the Justice Department considered how state laws will be impacted? Is Maryland's 7-day waiting period unconstitutional? How about California's ban on Saturday night specials?
"The District of Columbia, a city that was once not only the nation's capital, but the nation's murder capital, has one of the strictest gun laws in the country. DOJ's reversal raises questions about how federal prosecutors operating in the District will use this interpretation in prosecuting gun crimes..
"As for New York, we require strict licensing and registration of handguns. And for good reason. States and local communities need to be able to pass gun laws that deal with their own particular issues. What works in one part of the country isn't going to work in another.
"Even within New York State we have different laws because what works in Onondaga County won't necessarily fly in Brooklyn.
"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.
"So I'm calling on the Department of Justice to fill in the details on this proposal. I am sending a letter today to Attorney General Ashcroft, asking him to explain the rationale for this policy change and the reasons it was not publicly vetted and discussed with Congress.
"I am also asking him to provide an analysis of the federal, state, and local gun laws that DOJ believes will be affected by this new interpretation of the Second Amendment.
"When it comes to guns, this is the biggest shift in policy we've seen in decades. It could undermine hundreds of state and local laws that have drastically reduced gun violence and saved countless lives.
"This is an underhanded way to avoid debate and it is a clear departure from what John Ashcroft promised to do during his confirmation hearings. To say it's a disappointment would be an understatement. It's a problem, and it's one we're going to deal with, aggressively, starting right now."
http://www.senate.gov/~schumer/SchumerWebsite/pressroom/press_releases/PR00975.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
Schumer: Ashcroft Decision Betrays Promise "To Follow Letter of the Law" Made During His Controversial Confirmation Hearings
Changing Definition of 2nd Amendment Could Undermine State, Local Gun Laws, End Vital Legal Protections That Reduced Gun Violence, Crime
US Senator Chuck Schumer today criticized the Justice Department's sudden change of interpretation of the Second Amendment, after decades of long-held policy. For over sixty years, the Justice Department has interpreted the Second Amendment as applying to those with a reasonable relationship to a well regulated militia. Now, in a stunning reversal of long-held policy, the Justice Department has argued before the Supreme Court that the Constitution broadly protects the rights of individuals to own firearms.
Schumer made the following statement at a press conference today:
"Yesterday, the Justice Department used footnotes in two Supreme Court briefs to announce a massive change of course in our nation's gun control policy. For the first time in 60 years, the federal government is saying that the right to bear arms is an individual right.
"This decision wasn't made after discussion, debate, and open dialogue. It wasn't made in consultation with Congress and the states. And it wasn't put forward with the kind of detail and analysis that such a significant policy shift would usually come with. Instead, it was done undercover, buried in footnotes.
"The broad principle that there is an individual right to bear arms is shared by many Americans, including myself. I'm of the view that you can't take a broad approach to other rights, such as First Amendment rights, and then interpret the Second Amendment so narrowly that it could fit in a thimble.
"But I'm also of the view that there are limits on those rights. Just as you can't falsely shout fire in a crowded movie theater, you can put restrictions on who can own guns and how, when, and where they may be possessed.
"At his confirmation hearings, Attorney General Ashcroft swore to enforce and defend all existing federal gun laws. He said, `I understand that being Attorney General means enforcing the law as they are written, not enforcing my personal preferences.'
"He also said, `I believe that there are constitutional inhibitions on the rights of citizens to bear certain kinds of arms, and some of those I would think good judgment -- some of those I would think bad judgment. But as attorney general it is not my judgment to make that kind of call. My judgment, my responsibility, is to uphold the acts of the legislative branch of this government in that arena, and I would do so and continue to do so in regard to the cases that now exist, and further enactments of the Congress.'
"The case that now exists is the United States v. Miller from 1939. In that case, the Supreme Court said that the Second Amendment protects only those rights that have some reasonable relationship to the preservation of efficiency of a well regulated militia.
"During his confirmation hearings, John Ashcroft made it abundantly clear that he would enforce the law as it is written, not as he'd like it to be. What happened to that pledge? It's hard to look his actions and not question whether he's going back on his word.
"The vote to confirm John Ashcroft's nomination was close, both in committee and in the Senate. Many members of my party who voted to confirm him based their decision on his commitment to follow the letter of the law. I wonder how they feel right now. I wonder if this is what they had in mind.
"The Justice Department is saying that the right to bear arms is subject to "reasonable restrictions." But the devil, as always, is in the details.
"Is the federal ban on assault weapons a reasonable restriction? Is the federal ban on felons owning firearms a reasonable restriction?
"We should know where Attorney General Ashcroft is on these questions but we don't. And we don't know precisely because this was done undercover of darkness, and not through an open process.
"The impact of this policy change is startling. Has the Justice Department considered how state laws will be impacted? Is Maryland's 7-day waiting period unconstitutional? How about California's ban on Saturday night specials?
"The District of Columbia, a city that was once not only the nation's capital, but the nation's murder capital, has one of the strictest gun laws in the country. DOJ's reversal raises questions about how federal prosecutors operating in the District will use this interpretation in prosecuting gun crimes..
"As for New York, we require strict licensing and registration of handguns. And for good reason. States and local communities need to be able to pass gun laws that deal with their own particular issues. What works in one part of the country isn't going to work in another.
"Even within New York State we have different laws because what works in Onondaga County won't necessarily fly in Brooklyn.
"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.
"So I'm calling on the Department of Justice to fill in the details on this proposal. I am sending a letter today to Attorney General Ashcroft, asking him to explain the rationale for this policy change and the reasons it was not publicly vetted and discussed with Congress.
"I am also asking him to provide an analysis of the federal, state, and local gun laws that DOJ believes will be affected by this new interpretation of the Second Amendment.
"When it comes to guns, this is the biggest shift in policy we've seen in decades. It could undermine hundreds of state and local laws that have drastically reduced gun violence and saved countless lives.
"This is an underhanded way to avoid debate and it is a clear departure from what John Ashcroft promised to do during his confirmation hearings. To say it's a disappointment would be an understatement. It's a problem, and it's one we're going to deal with, aggressively, starting right now."
http://www.senate.gov/~schumer/SchumerWebsite/pressroom/press_releases/PR00975.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
SUBMARINE SAILOR,TRUCK DRIVER,NE'ER DO WELL, INSTIGATOR,AND RUSTY WALLACE FAN
I just wish I had a dollar for every gun I wanted, then I'd be a rich man.
He's the only guy that looks almost as unhappy and frustrated (but not as childish) as Joe Biden.
He doesn't seem to mind making enemies over his gun control issues, and I don't mind not liking him for his closed-minded and willful misreading of the Second 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
~Secret Select Society Of Suave Stylish Smoking Jackets~
I guess you get what you deserve?
Trinity+++
"Train up a child in the way he should go, even when he is old he will not depart from it."(Proverbs 22:6)
"Not to put too fine a point on it, but if New York city had Arizonas gun laws, times square would look like OK corral, and thats not OK."
I think Chuck has a point. Certain Federal regulations and laws, are not appropriate for different areas of the country. If the people of Arizona, a civilized people, can trust themselves with guns, they should be allowed to do so. The people of Arizona should decide what type of gun restrictions should be inflicted on their citizens.
If the people of New York decide that they do not like guns, that they cant be trusted with guns, then they should be allowed to ban guns all together. So basically, a state should decide what gun control(if any) should be inflicted on themselves, and the Federal government shall stay out of the gun control business. Hey what a novel idea, lets use the constitution to decide this issue.
If states like Mass, MD, NY, DE, NJ, IL, etc. choose to not trust themselves with guns, who is the Federal government to step in and tell them they cannot do that. And if free, civilized states like AZ, TX, UT, NH, PA decide that they can be trusted with guns, the Federal government should not prohibit that in any way.
I say, let all of those gun control states control themselves into a total prohibition of guns. If the sheep are stupid enough to allow their representive government to opress them in this way, they do not deserve freedom, and do not deserve gun rights.
Happiness is a warm gun
"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
Let's see....underhanded tactics. Is that something like when Tom Foley kept the assault weapon ban vote in the House, open 15 minutes past the cutoff time so the gun-grabbers could talk one Democrat (who voted against it) to change her vote so it would be defeated? Is that what he means...huh?
But I REALLY AM sorry he's upset. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Mudge the sarcastic
I can't come to work today. The voices said, STAY HOME AND CLEAN THE GUNS!
"Ohh yeah this thing needs to be banned, just think of all the people who will not like this! God I love having power like this! Now I can say I have shot the thing and it is indeed evil!"
Thats a cute comment. I would elaborate on my original comment, but sinced you missed the point so amazingly the first time, I dont think further explanation would do any good.
Happiness is a warm gun
Your line of logic says who cares what NY does? Let them do what they want. They deserve it.
Look around fella. The liberal enclaves are the populated cities, and they tell the rest of the state what to do. Only reason some states don't go the way of New York (yet) is the population and power of large cities hasn't outweighed the rest of the state.
Solution isnt to let states do what they want. Solution is to ensure State AND Federal Constutions......especially Bill of Rights....are observed everywhere the same and NOT open to interpretation, re-writing, quibbling etc. States can violate your basic rights just the same as Feds. And they do.
But the point about Schumer being right? Where does that come in?
If I missed that point, it was because it wasnt there.
Oh I got the point. The point was, let the states do whatever they want. Feds should stay out of it. Two thoughts occur......WHY have a Federal Constitution at all then, let's just be a loose Confederation (worked real well the first time we tried it, right?)
Your lack of understanding with respect to the constitution is astounding. I guess you view the constitution as a document that was inteneded to police the states? Wrong bozo. The constitution is a document that specifically lays out what the Federal governments role would be. And that roll is very limited. And your "loose confederation" comment is hysterical. The founders thought the "loose confederation" was the way to go. Thats why they wrote a constitution that left most power in the hands of the individual states. Just because a bunch of politicians decided to hijack the constitution, and ignore it to create a powerful central government, does not make it right, and does not change the fact that the intentions of the founders was to have a very limited federal government.
Palongrifle thinks that is bad.
Thomas Jefferson thought that was good.
Your line of logic says who cares what NY does? Let them do what they want. They deserve it.
That is exactly what I am saying. Why should I give a hoot what the state of New York does? I do not live there.
If NY wants to tax their citizens 'til the grave, why should I care.
If the state of New York thinks any talk of Christianity in the schools is bad, but speaking about every other religion is OK, why should I care?
If the state of New York thinks that pornography is wonderful and should be protected, but anything religious can not be tolerated, why should I care?
If the state of New York thinks their bars should be open until 400 in the morning, and liquor can be bought anywhere, why should I care?
If the state of New York does not think their populace can be trusted with guns, why should I care?
The people of New York get what they vote for. If they want to elect politicians who treat them like sheep, who am I to interfere with their wishes?
Just as long as New York realizes that what is good for New York, is not good for the rest of the country, then me and New York are fine.Let the state of New York decide how they want to be governed. The constitution GUARANTEES them the right to do so.
Solution isnt to let states do what they want. Solution is to ensure State AND Federal Constutions......especially Bill of Rights....are observed everywhere the same and NOT open to interpretation, re-writing, quibbling etc. States can violate your basic rights just the same as Feds. And they do.
Spoken like a true tyrant.I am not saying that the constitution should be "open to interpetation"-you are. YOu have decided that even though the constitution does not say anything about forcing the will of the Federal government on the people of the states, you think that is exactly what the constitution was designed for. Talk about Orwellian double speak.
States actually have the constitutional authority to curb your rights. They are allowed to do so. Of course 98% of the states would do no such thing. But I am sure that you are of the opinion that the states are these evil entities, that need a Federal government to keep them in line. And I am sure with your ignorant understanding of the Constitution, you think the constitution was written to do such a thing.
But the point about Schumer being right? Where does that come in?
If I missed that point, it was because it wasnt there.
Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
Happiness is a warm gun
**It is your right to posess a firearm. In case of questions, please refer to ammendment 2, United States Constitution.**