Gun restrictions: OK with us, says Bush administration

[Lanya]

[Maybe I am the one who's misremembering here, but...didn't you all on the RIght used to be against gun restrictions? ]

WND WEAPONS OF CHOICE
Public 'threatened' by private-firearms ownership
Government argues gun restrictions 'permitted by the 2nd Amendment'
Posted: January 14, 2008
1:00 a.m. Eastern


? 2008 WorldNetDaily.com

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59674
Paul Clement

Since "unrestricted" private ownership of guns clearly threatens the public safety, the 2nd Amendment can be interpreted to allow a variety of gun restrictions, according to the Bush administration.

The argument was delivered by U.S. Solicitor General Paul D. Clement in a brief filed with the U.S. Supreme Court in the ongoing arguments over the legality of a District of Columbia ban on handguns in homes, according to a report from the Los Angeles Times.

Clement suggested that gun rights are limited and subject to "reasonable regulation" and said all federal limits on guns should be upheld.

"Given the unquestionable threat to public safety that unrestricted private firearm possession would entail, various categories of firearm-related regulation are permitted by the 2nd Amendment," he wrote in the brief, the Times reported.

He noted especially the federal ban on machine guns and those many other "particularly dangerous types of firearms," and endorsed restrictions on gun ownership by felons, those subject to restraining orders, drug users and "mental defectives."

His arguments came in the closely watched Washington, D.C., ban that would prevent residents from keeping handguns in their homes for self-defense.

(Story continues below)

Paul Helmke, of the pro-gun control Brady Campaign to Prevent Handgun Violence, told the Times he salutes the administration for its position.

But Alan Gura, who is heading up the challenge to the handgun ban, told the newspaper he was troubled Clement suggested more hearings on the case.

"We are very disappointed the administration is hostile to individual rights," he told the paper. "This is definitely hostile to our position."

Because of the specifics of the D.C. case, the ultimate ruling is expected to address directly whether the 2nd Amendment includes a right for individuals to have a gun, or whether local governments can approve whatever laws or ordinances they desire to restrict firearms.

The amendment reads, "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."

Clement is the Bush administration's chief lawyer before the court, and submitted the arguments in the case that is to determine whether the D.C. limit is constitutional. He said the 2nd Amendment, "protects an individual right to possess firearms, including for private purposes unrelated to militia operations," and noted the D.C. ban probably goes too far.

But the newspaper said most of Clement's new brief urges the Supreme Court to decide most current restrictions on guns and gun owners cannot be overturned by citing the 2nd Amendment.

He said the failing in the D.C. law is that it totally bans handguns in the homes of private citizens. But he urged the court to recognize, "Nothing in the 2nd Amendment properly understood ? calls for invalidation of the numerous federal laws regulating firearms."

The Justice Department long had endorsed gun controls until Attorney General John Ashcroft in 2001 switched the department's position to support individual gun rights, the Times said.

The court's hearing on the case has not yet been held.

Clement clerked for Associate Justice Antonin Scalia and worked as chief counsel to the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution, Federalism and Property Rights. He joined the Department of Justice in 2001 and moved into his current position in 2005.

If you would like to sound off on this issue, participate in today's WND Poll.
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59674

[BT]

The clueless parade continues ........unabated.

I don't see where the Bush Admin position has changed from Ashcroft. They still argue that gun ownership is an individual right, they aren't arguing that the Supreme Court has not settled whether that right can be regulated.

So what has changed?

[sirs]

Well deduced, Bt

[Universe Prince]

The clueless parade continues ........unabated.

I don't see where the Bush Admin position has changed from Ashcroft. They still argue that gun ownership is an individual right, they aren't arguing that the Supreme Court has not settled whether that right can be regulated.

So what has changed?

Sure looks to me like the man is arguing that the right can be regulated. And arguing it should be. And arguing basically that the Second Amendment is not grounds for overturning D.C.'s handgun ban. So perhaps nothing has changed, but clearly the Bush administration supports gun control laws.

And Lanya's question is a valid one. She didn't ask if the Bush administration used to be against gun restrictions. Her question was about those on the political right being against gun restrictions. How "you all on the Right" transformed into just the Bush administration is something I can't quite figure out. Where Lanya made her mistake is not recognizing that this issue is one where the Right has paid a lot of lip service to being against gun control laws, but not practiced what they preach. Kinda like they do on most small government issues.

The clueless parade indeed.

[Amianthus]

Sure looks to me like the man is arguing that the right can be regulated. And arguing it should be. And arguing basically that the Second Amendment is not grounds for overturning D.C.'s handgun ban.

Of course rights can be regulated. You can't shout fire in a crowded theatre, for example. And the argument was that Federal restrictions on gun ownership are within bounds for the 2nd amendment while the DC gun ban (which goes far beyond Federal restrictions) are out of bounds.

Clement is the Bush administration's chief lawyer before the court, and submitted the arguments in the case that is to determine whether the D.C. limit is constitutional. He said the 2nd Amendment, "protects an individual right to possess firearms, including for private purposes unrelated to militia operations," and noted the D.C. ban probably goes too far.

What they're saying is that not all firearm laws should be overturned, only those that go beyond the Federal laws.

[Universe Prince]

What they're saying is that not all firearm laws should be overturned, only those that go beyond the Federal laws.

But the newspaper said most of Clement's new brief urges the Supreme Court to decide most current restrictions on guns and gun owners cannot be overturned by citing the 2nd Amendment.

What they're saying is they don't want the authority of federal laws challenged by people citing the Second Amendment. And apparently if the D.C. ban should be overturned, it should not be on Second Amendment grounds. Clements did, after all, testify in the D.C. handgun ban case, not in a case about federal gun laws. I notice also that the gun control advocate was pleased by Clement's comments and the guy heading up the challenge to the D.C. handgun ban was not pleased by Clement's comments. So I'm not convinced your analysis of Clement's argument is accurate. Also, as best I can figure out, Clement's argument to the Supreme Court is not that the Court decide against the ban, but that the case be kicked back to a lower court for further hearings. In other words, he's not really arguing against the ban, but he left himself wiggle room to say he wasn't supporting it. And essentially the government has taken a position in favor of gun control laws, including apparently law limiting what kind of guns individuals are allowed to own. So the headline is still accurate, and Lanya's question, in this case, is still reasonable, however I notice, so far, no one except me seems willing to address it.

[Amianthus]

And essentially the government has taken a position in favor of gun control laws, including apparently law limiting what kind of guns individuals are allowed to own. So the headline is still accurate, and Lanya's question, in this case, is still reasonable, however I notice, so far, no one except me seems willing to address it.

Well, the Federal government, and this administration, has always held up a number of gun control restrictions.

Please point out any argument the Bush administration has ever used against the '34 restrictions or the '68 restrictions? Any challenges to the more recent instant background check? Any claim that certain individuals - such as former violent criminals - should be allowed to own firearms?

You and Lanya are basically saying that since the current administration opposes some restrictions (such as the DC gun ban) that they are hypocritical if they don't oppose all restrictions. Kinda like saying that if you support free speech, you must support people's right to yell fire in a crowded theatre.

[Universe Prince]

Well, the Federal government, and this administration, has always held up a number of gun control restrictions.

I don't recall saying otherwise. So I see no reason to answer your questions.

You and Lanya are basically saying that since the current administration opposes some restrictions (such as the DC gun ban) that they are hypocritical if they don't oppose all restrictions. Kinda like saying that if you support free speech, you must support people's right to yell fire in a crowded theatre.

Not quite. I'm basically saying the current administration isn't really opposing the D.C. handgun ban. The administration certainly is not suggesting to the court that the ban should definitely be overturned. The administration essentially argued that the Second Amendment should not be used to overturn gun control laws and that whatever gun control law the federal government passes or has passed should not even be looked at by the Supreme Court. Once upon a time, the political right professed an opposition to gun control laws. And here we are, watching the right-wing administration defend gun control laws. Not just laws preventing violent criminals from legally owning firearms, but laws dictating what sort of firearms people should be allowed to own. This is exactly the kind of gun control that the political right used to claim to oppose. And also we see the government not even bothering to manage to specifically argue against a ban of handguns, just defending its own authority to have gun control laws. So as I said before: Lanya's question, in this case, is still reasonable, however I notice, so far, no one except me seems willing to address it.

[Amianthus]

So as I said before: Lanya's question, in this case, is still reasonable, however I notice, so far, no one except me seems willing to address it.

Only because you're not listening.

The Federal government has said in this case that the 2nd Amendment should not be used to overturn all gun control laws, only those that have gone too far.

So, yeah, the thread title is bogus; the Bush administration has always said that some firearms laws (notably the federal ones) are appropriate. It's never said anything else. And I'm betting that no one on the right has ever said that the federal laws go too far (since the expiration of the Brady Bill, anyway).

You might as well start a thread titled "Speech restrictions: OK with us, says Bush administration" and bitch about how they continue to uphold the various laws banning yelling of fire in a crowded theatre; it would be about as accurate.

[Universe Prince]

Only because you're not listening.

Not so. I've seen a lot about how the Bush administration has always blah blah blah. Not much about how the political right used to claim to be against gun control laws, which is what Lanya's question was about.

The Federal government has said in this case that the 2nd Amendment should not be used to overturn all gun control laws, only those that have gone too far.

I can't find that anywhere. I can find that Clement apparently said he thinks the D.C. ban "probably goes too far". I can't find any evidence whatever that says Clement argued the D.C. ban definately goes too far or that the position of the administration is that the ban should definately be overturned. What I can find says the only two definite arguments that Clement made were that the case should be kicked back down to a lesser court for more hearings and that the Second Amendment should not be grounds for objecting to federal gun control laws.

So, yeah, the thread title is bogus; the Bush administration has always said that some firearms laws (notably the federal ones) are appropriate. It's never said anything else. And I'm betting that no one on the right has ever said that the federal laws go too far (since the expiration of the Brady Bill, anyway).

Once upon a time some people thought the assault weapons ban went too far. I'm guessing you mean that and not the Brady Bill. But given that Clement apparently argued that such a ban is reasonable, apparently now the political right is not against that either.

You might as well start a thread titled "Speech restrictions: OK with us, says Bush administration" and bitch about how they continue to uphold the various laws banning yelling of fire in a crowded theatre; it would be about as accurate.

No, it would not. Since no one is arguing in favor of yelling "fire" in crowded theater or selling handguns to violent criminals, it isn't like that at all. And if Clement had merely argued that federal laws about keeping firearms away from the mentally insane and/or violent criminals were okay, then I wouldn't really have a problem with what he said, and I'd be agreeing with you. However, that isn't really what he argued. He argued, basically, federal laws were not subject to Second Amendment challenges. He did not argue that D.C. ban should be overturned, rather he argued the case should be sent back to a lower court for more hearings. And apparently he thinks assault weapons bans are just fine and dandy. So I think you're seriously over simplifying what Clement said, and I think your comparison is therefore bogus.

[Amianthus]

and that the Second Amendment should not be grounds for objecting to federal gun control laws.

The DC gun ban is not a federal law. So you just showed that that is what Clement was arguing.

[Amianthus]

Not much about how the political right used to claim to be against gun control laws, which is what Lanya's question was about.

You'll have to show me where the "political right" was against EVERY gun law, including federal laws. The only federal gun ban that I remember them being against was the Brady Bill, which is gone now.

Yeah, some were against the assault weapons ban, but that was such a stupid law that manufacturers got around it before the law even went into effect.

[Amianthus]

I can't find that anywhere. I can find that Clement apparently said he thinks the D.C. ban "probably goes too far".

Actually, you need to go back and reread the article. Clements didn't use the "probably goes too far" line, that was the article's author. You'll notice that part is specifically left out of quotes, and therefore does not represent an actual quote.

Here is the actual line:

He said the 2nd Amendment, "protects an individual right to possess firearms, including for private purposes unrelated to militia operations," and noted the D.C. ban probably goes too far.

What Clement actually said is in quotes, the rest is "interpretation" by the article's author.

And Lanya's question is "didn't you all on the RIght used to be against gun restrictions?" The answer is, "no, the right was never against ALL gun restrictions."

As I said, it's kinda like complaining that I can't yell fire in a crowded theatre, and then asking "didn't you all on the left used to be against free speech restrictions?"

[Plane]

Also the FAR right doesn't claim George Bush anyway.

I know I am far to his right.

I am so far right on this question that a small nudge further right would make me libertarian.

[Universe Prince]

The DC gun ban is not a federal law. So you just showed that that is what Clement was arguing.

No, that is not what I showed. But you showed you can take a quote out of context.

The only federal gun ban that I remember them being against was the Brady Bill, which is gone now.

Near as I can determine, the Brady Bill is not gone, but the five day waiting period was replaced by a computerized criminal background check.

Yeah, some were against the assault weapons ban, but that was such a stupid law that manufacturers got around it before the law even went into effect.

Well, let me know when some decide to oppose H.R. 1022, a new assault weapon ban. "The bill has some of the same language as was in the 1994 ban, but adds many new firearms to the list, including whole categories of self-loading sporting shotguns and rifles, under the rationale that any firearm that is 'procured for use by the United States military or any Federal law enforcement agency' is not suitable for 'sporting purposes'." (Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007)

I can't find that anywhere. I can find that Clement apparently said he thinks the D.C. ban "probably goes too far".

Actually, you need to go back and reread the article. Clements didn't use the "probably goes too far" line, that was the article's author. You'll notice that part is specifically left out of quotes, and therefore does not represent an actual quote.

Hence my use of the word "apparently". I'm pretty sure if he had said the ban definately went too far, that would have been reflected in the article. The reporter apparently didn't believe Clement said so, and Alan Gura, the guy heading up the legal opposition to the ban, apparently didn't think Clement said so either because by all reports Gura wasn't too happy with Clement's arguments. So I see no reason to back down from what I said.

And Lanya's question is "didn't you all on the RIght used to be against gun restrictions?" The answer is, "no, the right was never against ALL gun restrictions."

As I said, it's kinda like complaining that I can't yell fire in a crowded theatre, and then asking "didn't you all on the left used to be against free speech restrictions?"

As I said: Since no one is arguing in favor of yelling "fire" in crowded theater or selling handguns to violent criminals, it isn't like that at all. And if Clement had merely argued that federal laws about keeping firearms away from the mentally insane and/or violent criminals were okay, then I wouldn't really have a problem with what he said, and I'd be agreeing with you. However, that isn't really what he argued. He argued, basically, federal laws were not subject to Second Amendment challenges. He did not argue that D.C. ban should be overturned, rather he argued the case should be sent back to a lower court for more hearings. And apparently he thinks assault weapons bans are just fine and dandy. So I think you're seriously over simplifying what Clement said, and I think your comparison is therefore bogus.