by Jeff Rau
[email protected]

Many people in the second amendment community have heard about our new Attorney General, John Ashcroft, stating that it is the official policy of the Dept. of Justice to read the second amendment as an individual right to keep and bear arms. Gosh this sounds like a good thing right?�

Well don't get out the party hats yet. Ashcroft does not believe this should hinder the U.S. from prosecuting people for violating existing gun laws. I have not heard that the DOJ will not enforce gun show legislation if such a bill is made law. I have not heard that present gun bans will not be enforced. In short I have not heard that the Attorney General is going to stop enforcement of even one of over 20,000 federal gun laws.

Now some of those 20,000 gun laws may be constitutional, such as firearms training for federal agents, and legislation which puts similar regulations on the gun industry as are on other industries but a good share of those many laws on the books were written and passed because the second amendment was viewed by the federal government as a collective right, not an individual right. Certainly some of those laws must be at odds with an individual right to keep and bear arms.

I wonder what gun law the Bush administration would consider unconstitutional. Current gun bans are still in effect so what is to stop the government from banning more types of guns? Will we be left with our single shot .22s? Will we need to have our guns registered and ourselves licensed? What is the level of infringement that is acceptable on a right that shall not be infringed?

Of course rights should not be thought of as absolute. Our right to free speech does not allow us to libel or slander others or threaten or plan criminal activities. There are limits to our right to speak but those limits prevent us from violating the rights of others. An officer does not need to get a warrant if he sees a suspect enter a building. The fourth amendment is not absolute.

The second amendment is not absolute. It does not allow people to use the gun to rob kill or intimidate others. It does not allow people to carry guns on other people's property if they don't want guns there. When a person shoots a gun they are responsible for what the bullet hits. Rights come with responsibilities.

In some ways the Bush administration could be worse than a Gore administration would have been. The article says this administration will deal differently with individual rights. It is starting to look like the difference is that the Bush administration believes individual rights should be ignored when the government thinks it is in our best interests.

I have written an email to the DOJ stating my concerns but as yet I have received no reply. You may want to write them at [email protected].

�