For those of us who were asleep, the following site provides a real eye-opener when it comes to the Department of Justice's true attitude toward citizens possessing arms. If you are up on Emerson, skip this thread. Otherwise enjoy
http://www.gunweek.com/
DOJ Claims No Individual Right to Arms During Oral Arguments in Emerson Case
The Clinton Administration’s Department of Justice (DOJ) claimed that there is no constitutional right for any individual American to possess firearms of any kind during oral arguments before a three-judge panel of the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals, which was reviewing a lower court decision in US v Emerson.
Even membership in a National Guard unit does not confer a right to keep arms at home, Assistant US Attorney William B. Mateja told the judges during the June 13 hearing in New Orleans.
The government’s position seemed to startle even the judges who were questioning attorneys for Dr. Timothy Joe Emerson and the government, which had appealed the pro-rights decision of federal District Court Judge Sam Cummings in a gun case that percolated up from a simple divorce proceeding in Texas.
The case stems from Cummings’ March 30, 1999 ruling in Emerson's claims that his arrest was unconstitutional. Emerson was arrested while under a restraining order (RO) from his estranged wife for violation of the Lautenberg provisions of federal law, prohibiting a person under such an order from possessing a firearm.
In his initial trial held in Cummings’ court, Emerson claimed the federal statute he was charged under violated his Second and Fifth Amendment rights, as well as the 10th Amendment to the US Constitution.
While Cummings’ decision upheld the statute under the 10th Amendment, it ruled that the law in question, 18 USC, §922 (g)(8), was indeed a violation of Emerson's Second and Fifth Amendment rights.
The three judges hearing the appeals arguments in June were: William Garwood, appointed by President Reagan; Harold R. DeMoss Jr., appointed by President Bush, and Robert M. Parker, appointed by President Clinton.
Two pro-gun observers in the New Orleans courtroom—Linda Thomas of Houston, a recent law school graduate, and Tom Gresham, host of the "Gun Talk" radio show—reported that the judges gave the Second Amendment and related constitutional questions a "fair and thorough" airing.
"The judges had done their homework," Thomas said. "It was like sitting in on a Gun Rights Policy Conference legal seminar."
"The three-judge panel asked tough questions," Gresham reported.
Thomas and Gresham both reported that the judges appeared incredulous that the government was saying that no one has a right to own guns, and that the Second Amendment guarantees only the right of the National Guard to own guns.
Garwood said to Mateja: "You are saying that the Second Amendment is consistent with a position that you can take guns away from the public? You can restrict ownership of rifles, pistols and shotguns from all people? Is that the position of the United States?"
Meteja replied: "Yes!"
Garwood followed up: "Is it the position of the United States that persons who are not in the National Guard are afforded no protections under the Second Amendment?"
Meteja: "Exactly."
Meteja then said that even membership in the National Guard isn't enough to protect the private ownership of a firearm.
Garwood asked: "Membership in the National Guard isn't enough? What else is needed?"
Meteja: "The weapon in question must be used in the National Guard."
In other words, the Justice Department claims, no one, even if a member of the National Guard, has a right to own guns privately. That argument clearly supports what Handgun Control Inc. and the Clinton Administration has been saying all along—there is no right to the means for self-defense. They have maintained that position, even while claiming that they do not want to take away hunting and sporting rifles, shotguns and pistols.
The Emerson case could prove to be pivotal to the individual right to keep and bear arms. Regardless of how the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals rules, one side or the other is expected to appeal to the Supreme Court. Should the high court decide to consider the case, the court’s decision is expected to provide a definitive interpretation of what the Second Amendment really means. For a complete background on the Emerson case, including the original decision by Cummings and all of the defense and government briefs—as well as amicus briefs on both sides which more thoroughly argue specific legal issues, see the Second Amendment Foundation web site: http://www.saf.org/EmersonViewOptions.html.
A more detailed story will appear in the July 1, 2000 issues of The New Gun Week.
____________________________
Gov't responses to questions by the judge are quite interesting. There is no place for Clinton's people to hide.
------------------
Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.
Barry Goldwater--1964
http://www.gunweek.com/
DOJ Claims No Individual Right to Arms During Oral Arguments in Emerson Case
The Clinton Administration’s Department of Justice (DOJ) claimed that there is no constitutional right for any individual American to possess firearms of any kind during oral arguments before a three-judge panel of the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals, which was reviewing a lower court decision in US v Emerson.
Even membership in a National Guard unit does not confer a right to keep arms at home, Assistant US Attorney William B. Mateja told the judges during the June 13 hearing in New Orleans.
The government’s position seemed to startle even the judges who were questioning attorneys for Dr. Timothy Joe Emerson and the government, which had appealed the pro-rights decision of federal District Court Judge Sam Cummings in a gun case that percolated up from a simple divorce proceeding in Texas.
The case stems from Cummings’ March 30, 1999 ruling in Emerson's claims that his arrest was unconstitutional. Emerson was arrested while under a restraining order (RO) from his estranged wife for violation of the Lautenberg provisions of federal law, prohibiting a person under such an order from possessing a firearm.
In his initial trial held in Cummings’ court, Emerson claimed the federal statute he was charged under violated his Second and Fifth Amendment rights, as well as the 10th Amendment to the US Constitution.
While Cummings’ decision upheld the statute under the 10th Amendment, it ruled that the law in question, 18 USC, §922 (g)(8), was indeed a violation of Emerson's Second and Fifth Amendment rights.
The three judges hearing the appeals arguments in June were: William Garwood, appointed by President Reagan; Harold R. DeMoss Jr., appointed by President Bush, and Robert M. Parker, appointed by President Clinton.
Two pro-gun observers in the New Orleans courtroom—Linda Thomas of Houston, a recent law school graduate, and Tom Gresham, host of the "Gun Talk" radio show—reported that the judges gave the Second Amendment and related constitutional questions a "fair and thorough" airing.
"The judges had done their homework," Thomas said. "It was like sitting in on a Gun Rights Policy Conference legal seminar."
"The three-judge panel asked tough questions," Gresham reported.
Thomas and Gresham both reported that the judges appeared incredulous that the government was saying that no one has a right to own guns, and that the Second Amendment guarantees only the right of the National Guard to own guns.
Garwood said to Mateja: "You are saying that the Second Amendment is consistent with a position that you can take guns away from the public? You can restrict ownership of rifles, pistols and shotguns from all people? Is that the position of the United States?"
Meteja replied: "Yes!"
Garwood followed up: "Is it the position of the United States that persons who are not in the National Guard are afforded no protections under the Second Amendment?"
Meteja: "Exactly."
Meteja then said that even membership in the National Guard isn't enough to protect the private ownership of a firearm.
Garwood asked: "Membership in the National Guard isn't enough? What else is needed?"
Meteja: "The weapon in question must be used in the National Guard."
In other words, the Justice Department claims, no one, even if a member of the National Guard, has a right to own guns privately. That argument clearly supports what Handgun Control Inc. and the Clinton Administration has been saying all along—there is no right to the means for self-defense. They have maintained that position, even while claiming that they do not want to take away hunting and sporting rifles, shotguns and pistols.
The Emerson case could prove to be pivotal to the individual right to keep and bear arms. Regardless of how the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals rules, one side or the other is expected to appeal to the Supreme Court. Should the high court decide to consider the case, the court’s decision is expected to provide a definitive interpretation of what the Second Amendment really means. For a complete background on the Emerson case, including the original decision by Cummings and all of the defense and government briefs—as well as amicus briefs on both sides which more thoroughly argue specific legal issues, see the Second Amendment Foundation web site: http://www.saf.org/EmersonViewOptions.html.
A more detailed story will appear in the July 1, 2000 issues of The New Gun Week.
____________________________
Gov't responses to questions by the judge are quite interesting. There is no place for Clinton's people to hide.
------------------
Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.
Barry Goldwater--1964