General Ashcroft make his move
General Ashcroft has announce the Second Amendment applies to individuals. This will apparently affect the case of a Tim Emerson, a Texas physician accused of violating a 1994 law barring people under restraining orders from having guns. The DOJ is currently appealing the case claiming the Second Amendment does not extend to an individual the right to guns. http://www.bradycampaign.org has filed an ethics complaint against Ashcroft. WWW illiterate: http://usdoj.gov doesn't work.
[Note from Matthew Gaylor: Richard Stevens is author of the recent book "Dial 911 and Die" published by the Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership. http://www.jpfo.org ]
On Thu, 12 Jul 2001, Matthew Gaylor wrote:
As you know, Ashcroft also said in that footnote in his letter that the Constitution "does not prohibit Congress from enacting laws restricting firearms ownership for compelling state interests, such as prohibiting firearms ownership by convicted felons."
Where is that boundary condition in the amendment? Saying "felons may not own firearms" is certainly an infringment. Rights don't come from the state after all (see 1st two para's of the DoI). Amendment II 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. -- ____________________________________________________________________ Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
I whole heartedly agree. In the article it berated Violence Policy center for excluding the quotes by the founding fathers, a mistake paltry in comparison to that statement alpha ----- Original Message ----- From: "Matthew Gaylor" <freematt@coil.com> To: <George@Orwellian.Org> Cc: <cypherpunks@cyberpass.net> Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2001 12:01 PM Subject: CDR: Re: General Ashcroft make his move
[Note from Matthew Gaylor: Richard Stevens is author of the recent book "Dial 911 and Die" published by the Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership. http://www.jpfo.org ]
Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 16:00:46 -0700 (PDT) From: Richard Stevens <dial911book@yahoo.com> Subject: Matt -- we must protest when "our side" errs To: Matthew Gaylor <freematt@coil.com>
Dear Colleagues,
The July 2001 Issue of NRA's America's First Freedom magazine featured a cover picture of John Ashcroft and highlighted the story of Ashcroft's letter indicating that "the Constitution protects the private ownership of firearms for lawful purposes." The magazine (at pp. 35-37) exults in the reversal of Justice Department policy on the Second Amendment.
That's great. On page 37, the NRA reprints Ashcroft's letter -- as though it were *in full* -- but omits the footnote that exists in Ashcroft's actual letter.
As you know, Ashcroft also said in that footnote in his letter that the Constitution "does not prohibit Congress from enacting laws restricting firearms ownership for compelling state interests, such as prohibiting firearms ownership by convicted felons."
The NRA omitted a key element of Ashcroft's position -- and then published the letter as though it were complete.
That omission is a terrible distortion -- and seriously damages NRA's credibility with those of us who know the whole truth. What else might the NRA choose to omit, where the omission serves a PR purpose? Are their reports from the UN correct? Their reports about lobbying efforts and the positions taken by NRA-backed candidates?
I wonder who at the NRA thought it was a good idea to distort the facts, and conceal the somewhat negative truth, just to advance the appearance of NRA success? That's the conduct we came to expect from HCI & Co. ... now it has infected the NRA.
Members like me should demand the NRA publish an accounting of this mistake, fire the person who made the mistake, apologize and repent from such conduct.
--Richard Stevens (my personal views only)
************************************************************************** Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues Send a blank message to: freematt@coil.com with the words subscribe FA on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per week) Matthew Gaylor, (614) 313-5722 ICQ: 106212065 Archived at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fa/ **************************************************************************
Matt, Thanks for posting this. I'm not sure why this should be a surprise. Groups that care about currying favor with Congress and the administration have a strong incentive to distort the truth to constitutents in hopes of persuading them that awful compromises are not. To use examples from the Net, the Center for Democracy and Technology circa 1995-1996 backed a bill that would criminalize "harmful to minors" material online. In part this was due to a desire to remain influential on Capitol Hill rather than taking a more extreme position. (http://www.epic.org/cda/hyde_letter.html) EFF cut a (bad) deal on CALEA and backed a flawed bill around the same time (http://cyberwerks.com/cyberwire/cwd/cwd.94.09.14.html). This is not to say those groups would do the same thing now, of course. The other approach is to hew to principle, with the understanding that you'll be less effective as a lobbyist. Deal-cutting is the currency of Washington politics, and if you don't do it you don't have much to spend. The ACLU's lobbyists take this approach. (So do groups like CEI, EPIC, and Cato, though they don't really lobby. I've seen Gun Owners of America take the same no-compromise stand.) The NRA doesn't see things the same way, and their approach does make them more influential. There may be other factors as well, but it should be no surprise that Fortune magazine's poll of Hill staffers reports that staffers from both major parties rank the NRA among the top five or so most influential groups. The no compromise groups don't make the list. Also, this issue may be part of a pretty complicated political analysis. For instance, the NRA may want the help of the Bush administration (a veto over a bad campaign finance bill) in one area so will laud them here even when the praise is undeserved. NRA lobbyists may be betting that a paean to Ashcroft now will let them bank political capital that can be spent against a gun bill later. Strategically, if the NRA takes the extreme step of later denouncing Ashcroft, this current pro-Ashcroft campaign will make the media take their later statements more seriously. Then again, it could be an honest mistake on the part of the NRA in leaving out that key footnote. Has anyone asked them? -Declan www.mccullagh.org On Thu, Jul 12, 2001 at 03:01:03PM -0400, Matthew Gaylor wrote:
[Note from Matthew Gaylor: Richard Stevens is author of the recent book "Dial 911 and Die" published by the Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership. http://www.jpfo.org ]
Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 16:00:46 -0700 (PDT) From: Richard Stevens <dial911book@yahoo.com> Subject: Matt -- we must protest when "our side" errs To: Matthew Gaylor <freematt@coil.com>
Dear Colleagues,
The July 2001 Issue of NRA's America's First Freedom magazine featured a cover picture of John Ashcroft and highlighted the story of Ashcroft's letter indicating that "the Constitution protects the private ownership of firearms for lawful purposes." The magazine (at pp. 35-37) exults in the reversal of Justice Department policy on the Second Amendment.
That's great. On page 37, the NRA reprints Ashcroft's letter -- as though it were *in full* -- but omits the footnote that exists in Ashcroft's actual letter.
As you know, Ashcroft also said in that footnote in his letter that the Constitution "does not prohibit Congress from enacting laws restricting firearms ownership for compelling state interests, such as prohibiting firearms ownership by convicted felons."
The NRA omitted a key element of Ashcroft's position -- and then published the letter as though it were complete.
That omission is a terrible distortion -- and seriously damages NRA's credibility with those of us who know the whole truth. What else might the NRA choose to omit, where the omission serves a PR purpose? Are their reports from the UN correct? Their reports about lobbying efforts and the positions taken by NRA-backed candidates?
I wonder who at the NRA thought it was a good idea to distort the facts, and conceal the somewhat negative truth, just to advance the appearance of NRA success? That's the conduct we came to expect from HCI & Co. ... now it has infected the NRA.
Members like me should demand the NRA publish an accounting of this mistake, fire the person who made the mistake, apologize and repent from such conduct.
--Richard Stevens (my personal views only)
************************************************************************** Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues Send a blank message to: freematt@coil.com with the words subscribe FA on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per week) Matthew Gaylor, (614) 313-5722 ICQ: 106212065 Archived at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fa/ **************************************************************************
This makes it likely for Ashcrap's justice department to drop the case, which means a clear 2nd Amendment issue will not go to the SCoTUS, which means as soon as this case is out of the pipeline, they can "change" their policy just like they just did. Especially if the Dem's take over the House next year. We seem to be living in interesting times. At 05:01 AM 7/12/01, George@Orwellian.Org wrote:
General Ashcroft has announce the Second Amendment applies to individuals.
This will apparently affect the case of a Tim Emerson, a Texas physician accused of violating a 1994 law barring people under restraining orders from having guns. The DOJ is currently appealing the case claiming the Second Amendment does not extend to an individual the right to guns.
http://www.bradycampaign.org has filed an ethics complaint against Ashcroft.
WWW illiterate: http://usdoj.gov doesn't work.
At 7:55 PM -1000 7/12/01, Reese wrote:
This makes it likely for Ashcrap's justice department to drop the case, which means a clear 2nd Amendment issue will not go to the SCoTUS, which means as soon as this case is out of the pipeline, they can "change" their policy just like they just did. Especially if the Dem's take over the House next year.
Bingo. Score one for Reese.
We seem to be living in interesting times.
Chinese curses I can live without.
participants (7)
-
Brent -
Declan McCullagh -
Georgeï¼ Orwellian.Org -
Jim Choate -
Matthew Gaylor -
Petro -
Reese