DOJ Reaffirms Constitution Protects
Individual Right to Arms
|
"...[T]his attorney
general has followed through on his correct interpretation that the
Second Amendment is an individual right..." |
|
|
-- NRA-ILA Director Chris Cox |
|
Solicitor General
Ted Olson
|
U.S. Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson sent gun-ban extremists into a
state of virtual "collective" apoplexy when he submitted the federal
government's briefs in two cases that are up for consideration by the
Supreme Court of the United States. Why? Because the filings state the
federal government holds the accurate view that the Second Amendment
protects an individual right.
This position was also spelled out last
year in a letter from U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft to
then-NRA-ILA Executive Director James Jay Baker (the Ashcroft letter was
also included with Olson's filings), and represents a complete reversal
of the Clinton-Gore Administration's fabrication that the Second
Amendment protects a "collective" right of states to maintain
militias.
| |
"...[A] welcome sign that the DOJ will
support and view the Second Amendment as our Founding Fathers had
originally intended..." |
Olson - whose position as Solicitor General requires him to defend federal
laws when they are challenged in the courts - asked the Supreme Court to
deny certiorari (decline to review) to two firearm-related cases - U.S. v.
Emerson and U.S. v. Haney. And while the briefs in both cases clearly
reaffirmed that the Second Amendment protects an individual right, Olson
also argued that the laws under review are constitutional. This
position is based on the government's view that the Second Amendment
allows "reasonable restrictions designed to prevent possession [of
firearms] by unfit persons or to restrict the possession of types of
firearms that are particularly suited to criminal misuse." Olson also
clearly stated the Department of Justice (DOJ) will continue to defend
"all existing federal firearms laws," and explains the DOJ "has a solemn
obligation both to enforce federal laws and to respect the
constitutional rights guaranteed to Americans."
Anti-gun extremists have reacted to Olson's filings with the expected
wailing. Michael Barnes, President of the gun-ban lobby formerly known
as HCI, complained that an "extreme ideology on guns has now become
government policy." He failed to explain how the Bush Administration's
position is "extreme" when it mirrors the belief of the vast majority of
the American people.
U.S. Senator Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), who claims to support the
individual right to bear arms, complained that the DOJ acted "without
any consultation, any notice, any discussion" - apparently implying he
feels the DOJ should report to the U.S. Senate, rather than the White
House - then stated he feared that anti-gun laws at the state level may
suffer as a consequence. He railed, "[I]f New York City had Arizona's
gun laws, Times Square would look like the OK Corral." Schumer seems
to forget that Arizona, with firearm laws that are far less restrictive
than those of New York City, has much less violent crime. Is the New
York senator asserting that his constituents are not as responsible or
law-abiding as the citizens of Arizona?
The radical Violence Policy Center (VPC) - a shrill outspoken advocate of
banning all hand-guns - went a step farther. It convinced an attorney
from a prestigious New York law firm to write to Olson, objecting to the
DOJ mentioning anything about the Second Amendment protecting an
individual right. The VPC was so eager to protest that the 15-page
letter was sent before Olson's briefs were made public. And while Matt
Nosanchuk, the VPC's Litigation Director and Legislative Counsel,
claimed the organization was simply "anticipating" what Olson might do,
it is important to note that Nosanchuk previously served in the DOJ
under Bill Clinton and Al Gore, and was likely given advance warning via
a leak from career DOJ employees who still support the anti-gun policies
of the previous administration. It appears VPC in all likelihood
improperly obtained advance copies of the briefs - still further proof
this group is willing to illegitimately manipulate the resources of our
government to advance its gun-ban agenda.
The anti-gun organization that calls itself "Americans for Gun Safety"
(AGS) has been far less vocal about the recent actions of the DOJ, in
large part because it was too busy launching a deceptive ad campaign
aimed at abolishing traditional American gun shows. But perhaps the
lack of an AGS position on the DOJ's most recent actions are also part
of a carefully calculated strategy to continue to mislead the general
public as to its true intentions. The group has tried to separate
itself from other anti-gun organizations by claiming it supports the
right to own firearms, so one would think it would leap at the
opportunity to praise the DOJ's position. But Newsday reported AGS
spokesman Matthew Bennet (formerly an aide in the Clinton White House)
was concerned the briefs "raise questions about the enforceability of
gun laws and, importantly, leaves open the question about whether new
gun laws could be enforced." It will be interesting to see if AGS
remains relatively silent on the DOJ's actions in order to continue the
charade that it supports the rights of law-abiding gun owners, or if it
will choose to expose its true anti-gun agenda by condemning the
government's position that the Second Amendment protects an individual
right.
Ultimately, what Olson's briefs will mean to the overall debate over gun
control remains to be seen. NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris Cox
cautioned that it is too early to tell what the impact on existing laws
will be, but also stated, "[O]bviously we're pleased by this. This is a
very good start." And most constitutional and legal experts concur.
George Mason University Professor Nelson Lund told the Washington Times,
"The decision seems largely symbolic. We don't have any way of knowing
whether it's going to have any practical effect at all. If so, it will
be quite some time before we see an effect." Attorney Stephen Halbrook,
who successfully argued a challenge to the Brady Act before the Supreme
Court, told the Times, "No court is going to be persuaded because the
government says [supporting the individual right to arms is] their
policy. It's what they've got to back it up that matters."
But make no mistake, Olson's filing is a welcome sign that the DOJ will
support and view the Second Amendment as our Founding Fathers had
originally intended - a protection of an individual right to arms. Chris
Cox told the LA Times, "It should come as no surprise that this attorney
general has followed through on his correct interpretation that the
Second Amendment is an individual right, following through not only in
word but in deed."
Related Stories...
More About Federal Issues
Ashcroft: Under Attack For Obeying The Law (Dec 2001)
Federal Court Says Second Amendment Protects Individual Right (Oct 2001)
Ashcroft Confirms Second Amendment Protects Individual Right (May 2001)
Support Mounts for Individual Rights Theory (Aug 1999)
Federal Court Upholds Individual Right to Bear Arms (Apr 1999)
|
|
