Ashcroft turns 2ND AMENDMENT on its head, argues for personal right to bear arms

[RyanH]

The Attorney General is now seeking to turn the 2nd amendment on its head by seeking to overturn a decades long Justice Department position that there is NO private, constitutional right to bear arms. In short, Attorney General Ashcroft incorrectly asserts that an individual has a constitutional, individual right to bear arms, even though a more critical reading of the 2nd amendment says otherwise---only state militias have the fundamental right to bear arms.

Forget the fact that firearms claimed almost 30,000 lives last year. Instead, the extremist, Attorney General is arguing that imposing any restrictions on gun ownership should require a new Supreme Court standard which would require that private, gun ownership be recognized as a fundamental constitutional right, via the 2nd Amendment---an idea that would make gun regulations next to impossible to pass by Congress.

If the Attorney General has his way the new constitutional standard could lead to sweeping curbs on even the modest gun safety laws now in effect. Moreover, it could lead to severe changes in background checks, regulation of concealed weapons, and bans on guns such as assault rifle.

At long last, the N.R.A. (killing machine) is getting its quid pro quo for its contributions to the Bush presidential election campaign. In the meantime, Supreme Court precedent is attacked, the Constitution is assaulted, and our nation's health might be sacrificed all because the N.R.A (killing machine) has all but bribed the Republican party.......Bang, Bang,====sold out!

Ryan.

 

[manny78]

Ryan: I've always been told that any US citizen had the right to own a weapon fro its personal defence, so I dont see the problem here. Otherwise, please explain that to me, the poor Canadian

 

[Mdguy]

Ryan, I'm not going to touch this one..

Ashcroft might be a d*** in his other shenanigans, but he's right on this topic.
Have you ever read the Federalist Papers? It's fairly obvious that the Founding Fathers meant the militia to be the collective of a group of 'individuals'-any able bodied male over 16 years of age and I forget, less than a certain age, but can be older with prior military experience. That might mean one or a thousand people-the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
Anyway, I think you are overreacting. Even if that 'precedent' (which I am not up-to-date on) is 'attacked', I don't think it will affect change the current Brady Bill, Assault weapon legislation, etc.
..and using VIOLENT smilies is a definite NO..NO..you're promulgating violence and flamethrower abuse

 

[RyanH]

Ryan: I've always been told that any US citizen had the right to own a weapon fro its personal defence, so I dont see the problem here. Otherwise, please explain that to me, the poor Canadian

Legally there is no FUNDAMENTAL right to bear arms, which means it's only a right recognized through affirmative or negative legislation, not the constitution.

Any law passed is usually subject to less scrutiny when it does not relate to a FUNDAMENTAL constitutional right. A fundamental constitutional right, on the other hand, is subject to greater scrutiny when a legislature seeks to limit its scope. (i.e. equal protection).

Basically, if the United States Supreme Court recognizes an individual right to bear arms (something it has never done), then many of the current safety laws might be stricken since the laws would have to be tested against a fundamental right as opposed to a lower standard).

In short, its much harder for Congress to regulate a fundamental right. Thus, any laws passed to regulate guns would undergo rigorous constitutional scrutiny.

 

[manny78]

Legally there is no FUNDAMENTAL right to bear arms, which means it's only a right recognized through affirmative or negative legislation, not the constitution.

Any law passed is usually subject to less scrutiny when it does not relate to a FUNDAMENTAL constitutional right. A fundamental constitutional right, on the other hand, is subject to greater scrutiny when a legislature seeks to limit its scope. (i.e. equal protection).

Basically, if the United States Supreme Court recognizes an individual right to bear arms (something it has never done), then many of the current safety laws might be stricken since the laws would have to be tested against a fundamental right as opposed to a lower standard).

In short, its much harder for Congress to regulate a fundamental right. Thus, any laws passed to regulate guns would undergo rigorous constitutional scrutiny.

well the 2nd amendment says:

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.

so the "people" is the US citizens no ?

 

[RyanH]

Ryan, I'm not going to touch this one..

Ashcroft might be a d*** in his other shenanigans, but he's right on this topic.
Have you ever read the Federalist Papers? It's fairly obvious that the Founding Fathers meant the militia to be the collective of a group of 'individuals'-any able bodied male over 16 years of age and I forget, less than a certain age, but can be older with prior military experience. That might mean one or a thousand people-the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
Anyway, I think you are overreacting. Even if that 'precedent' (which I am not up-to-date on) is 'attacked', I don't think it will affect change the current Brady Bill, Assault weapon legislation, etc.
..and using VIOLENT smilies is a definite NO..NO..you're promulgating violence and flamethrower abuse

Debates on the adoption of the 2nd Amendment do not show that the framers were concerned with an individual right to bear arms, only the need to preserve the militia as an alternative to a standing army...the text and surrounding circumstances of the 2nd amendment is what we should be concerned with when seeking out the intent fo the founders.

As for your contention that the Ashcroft position will not change current laws, many legal commentators disagree. Again, the high court would have to analzye all gun control legislation against a tougher constitutional standard which, in turn, makes it harder to regulate guns.

 

[Steroid_Virgin]

guns are like drugs.. even if they were completely outlawed they'd still be everywhere... hahah I love it!! I love going to the range and shooting my guns... I love knowing if some dumb mother fucker breaks into my house and tries to harm me or my family, I will shoot his ass dead... and no liberal hippy is going to take that right away..... WOOO WHOOO!!!

 

[RyanH]

well the 2nd amendment says:

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.

so the "people" is the US citizens no ?

when the framers used the word "people," they did not intend that all adults could bear arms. Instead, the word "people" refers to another definition of "people"--those the states deem should be part of the militia (note the word "militia" before it).

For instance, in Articlle I the framers wrote that the "people'" will elect Congressmen and women, and that the determination of who can vote will be done by state legislatures. Similarly, militia service would remain subject to state regulation as well.

 

[Steroid_Virgin]

Instead, the word "people" refers to another definition of "people"--those the states deem should be part of the militia (note the word "militia" before it).

Hmm where have I heard this arguement before... Ahhh yes, lets argue what the "definition" of is.. really is.... LOLOLOLOL.. that tricks been worn out by you mentor Ryan....

 

[RyanH]

Hmm where have I heard this arguement before... Ahhh yes, lets argue what the "definition" of is.. really is.... LOLOLOLOL.. that tricks been worn out by you mentor Ryan....

the precise, detailed meaning of a word must be determined when dealing with issues of such importance...i.e. the "right to bear arms"