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.

Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (12332)	5/7/2002 3:07:08 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Respond to of 21057

Ask Jeff. In a previous incident under Admin Bob, it appears IP addresses played a large role. THis was the matter of lawdog AKA brutusdog AKA rachelsmith AKA Don Juan de Marco AKA bigsablepoint.

To: TimF who wrote (12332)	5/8/2002 10:25:06 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

washingtonpost.com U.S. Argues For Wider Gun Rights Supreme Court Filing Reverses Past Policy By Edward Walsh Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, May 8, 2002; Page A01 Reversing long-held government policy, the Bush administration has told the Supreme Court that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm that is not tied to the maintenance of state militias. The Justice Department staked out the position in briefs filed late Monday by Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson in two cases that the Supreme Court is considering for review. It was believed to be the first time that the department, speaking for the federal government, has said in a formal filing with a federal court that the Second Amendment grants an individual the right to bear arms. Acknowledging that the briefs represented a shift in government policy, Olson noted that, when the two cases were argued before separate appeals courts, "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." But, Olson said in the briefs, "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 (state) militia or engaged in active military service or training, to possess and bear their own firearms." He said the rights were "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 briefs reflect the strongly held views of Attorney General John D. Ashcroft on gun ownership. Ashcroft first advanced this interpretation of the Constitution in a letter last year to the National Rifle Association, and he reiterated his view in November in a memorandum to all U.S. attorneys in the country. The issue of the Second Amendment's meaning involves more than arcane legal and constitutional questions. It is at the heart of a bitter and longstanding political dispute between gun control advocates and defenders of an unlimited right to bear arms. The gun rights defenders read the amendment as granting an absolute right to all Americans, but others, citing the amendment's introductory phrase on the need to maintain "a well regulated militia," argue that it should be read in that context and that it is limited at a time when the United States has a huge, standing military force. Gun control advocates yesterday denounced the new Justice Department stand, asserting that it is at odds with decades of government policy under both Democratic and Republican administrations. "No administration has taken the position that there is an individual right to possess a gun under the Second Amendment," said Mathew S. Nosanchuk, litigation director for the Violence Policy Center. But NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam welcomed the development as "a step in the right direction." Justice Department spokeswoman Barbara Comstock said the two briefs reflected Ashcroft's views on the Second Amendment and the department's determination "to defend vigorously the constitutionality, under the Second Amendment, of all existing federal firearms laws." In the briefs, Olson stated the Bush administration's position on the Second Amendment while also arguing that the Supreme Court should not accept the two cases for review, thereby letting stand appeals court rulings that upheld the constitutionality of provisions of federal gun control laws. The key case involved a Texas man named Timothy Joe Emerson who was indicted for possession of a Beretta pistol while he was the subject of a domestic violence restraining order obtained by his wife. A federal district judge dismissed the indictment on the grounds that it violated Emerson's Second Amendment rights, but the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the lower court judge and ordered Emerson to be tried on the charge. In its ruling, the appeals court included a lengthy discussion of the Second Amendment, concluding that the amendment "protects the rights of individuals, including those not actively a member of any militia . . . to privately possess and bear their own firearms, such as the pistol involved here, that are suitable as personal, individual weapons." It was this view that Olson's briefs explicitly endorsed.