US Govt Backs Individuals Gun Rights

Not only has the Bush Administration rejected the UN Court, but they now 'officially' (and for the first time!) endorse the right of individuals to 'keep and bear arms'.

Check it out at http://dailynews.yahoo.com/fc/US/Gun_Control_Debate

Well, sort of. While the Justice Department has accepted the 5th Circuit Court's opinion in Emerson versus US, Ashcroft's brief to the SCOTUS seems to support the Second. But in lower court, Ashcroft is defending the 'assault weapon' ban of '94. Rather two-faced, IMNSHO. In the lower court, Ashcroft rejects the 'military usage' as laid out in US vs. Miller, 1939. So we have a right to 'approved' firearms, it's the government who decides which are 'approved.' FWIW, there's been only one case where a legally owned class III firearm has been used in a crime....

Sam A. Kersh NRA Patron Member L.E.A.A. Life Member TSRA Life Member GOA, JPFO, SAF

This looks good, except for these weasel words in the article: 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.'

The caveat of 'firearms particularly suited to criminal misuse' almost makes the rest of the statements useless, imo. This is way too vague and could easily be interpretted to make pretty much any firearm illegal.

The real test (of their intentions) may be the temporary ban on 'Assault-Style Weapons' due to sunset in 2004 (I think). If the administration (i.e.-Ashcroft) uses their special phrase to justify reinstituting the ban, then I guess we know where they stand. After all, wasn't that the cry of the liberals? 'Why, no one needs a semi-auto gun or high capacity magazines unless they're gonna commit a crime!' The president has surprised me on a number of issues in the last 6 months or so; I sure hope this isn't another one.

Amen! As to other postings attacking Ashcroft's prior positions- this is misguided.

John Ashcroft has always been pro gun, and that was one of the issues that delayed his nomination confirmation. He is true to the beliefs he has always held.

Randy Wakeman

Bill,

Does this mean that in your mind that Democrats always lie and Republicans always tell the truth?

And I thought you were a sensible fellow.

Actually it means that from my experience he would be more likely to 'shade the truth' or even vote contra to his expressed opinion to be able to follow the party line. Am I partisan ? Let me explain it this way. I make only one (1) mark on my ballot and put it in the box. (Actually I mail it back to the County Clerk these days.) What in the world did I say to give you that idea ? I'm an opinionated, hidebound, talkative, grouchy, sharp tongued curmudgeon. I believe in personal responsibility, 'ride for the brand', the least amount of government interference possible, and my two heroes are Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan. Though I admire 'Teddy' Roosevelt somewhat.

Bill Van Houten (USA Ret) 'No matter how hard you try, you can't throw a potato chip very far.'

Well, two out o' three ain't bad. Funny, I admire THubert Humphrey, Barry Goldwater, in that order.

and my two heroes are Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan. Though I admire 'Teddy' Roosevelt somewhat.

Who was your hero ? The draft dodger or the Army Times correspondent who did a whole three months TOD (with body guards) in Viet Nam ?

Bill Van Houten (USA Ret) 'No matter how hard you try, you can't throw a potato chip very far.'

Sam is correct, but I'm not referring to the technicalities of the ruling. I had in mind its EFFECT, which was that the US Gov't could control which firearms were legal and which were not. The Fed and the States have hung their collective hats on Miller ever since. Hence my comment about us not having an unfettered right to bear arms since 1939.

As others have pointed out here, the USG has avoided a showdown at SCOTUS over the 2nd for decades. A plain language reading of the words will throw a host of laws into disarray, and that's the last thing the Feds want. The trouble (from their perspective) is that we now have a fairly conservative court that might just do precisely that if the an appropirate appeal comes before them. IMO, that is why Mr Ashcorft is urging SCOTUS not to take on Emerson and Haney.