Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The 2nd Amendment-- The Facts........ -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Street who wrote (1097)	6/14/2000 11:08:00 PM
From: Gordon A. Langston	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10167

Here's some additional question and answer from the 5th District Court hearing the Emerson case. Well, here it is from the mouth of the lawyers representing the United States government, from my notes at the Emerson case. Judge Garwood: "You are saying that the Second Amendment is consistent with a position that you can take guns away from the public? You can restrict ownership of rifles, pistols and shotguns from all people? Is that the position of the United States?" Meteja (for the government: "Yes" Judge Garwood was having none of that. Garwood: "Is it the position of the United States that persons who are not in the National Guard are afforded no protections under the Second Amendment?" Meteja: Exactly. Meteja then said that even membership in the National Guard isn't enough to protect the private ownership of a firearm. It wouldn't protect the guns owned at the home of someone in the National Guard. Garwood: Membership in the National Guard isn't enough? What else is needed? Meteja: The weapon in question must be used in the National Guard. In other words, no one, even if a member of the National Guard, has a right to own guns privately. That is the position of the U.S. government. The judges seemed to reject the federalism position of the government which says that once an item has moved across a state line, it is forever covered by federal laws because it is involved in interstate commerce. This rejection seems to be in line with several narrow decisions from the Supreme Court in recent years. The judges also appeared incredulous that the government was saying that no one has a right to own guns, and that the Second Amendment guarantees only the right of the National Guard to own guns. It will be weeks or months before a decision is issued on this case, and nothing is assured, by any means. However, if you need some hope, I leave you with this final statement to government lawyer, made by Judge DeMoss. "You shouldn't let it bother your sleep that Judge Garwood (the senior judge) and I, between us, own enough guns to start a revolution in most South American countries." Now, what can you do with this information? 1. Write letters detailing the government's position that NO ONE has a right to own a gun. Most people in this country believe that they do, in fact, have the right to own a gun, and they need to know what the government is saying. 2. Explain to your fellow gun owners how important this case is (see point number 1 above), and that it is vital that Al Gore not be elected president, where he can appoint Supreme Court justices. If the Emerson case goes as I hope, it will be appealed to the Supreme Court. We don't want Gore appointees sitting there when this case arrives.