It aint for the safety of the Children, Ladies! Straight from the horses moouth….
What WE have known all along, or at least some of us…..

——
[from the Liberator OnLine Vol. 5, No. 12]

U.S. Department of Justice: Americans Have No Gun Rights

The Clinton Justice Department has made its position on the
Second Amendment shockingly plain and clear: there is no
Constitutional right to buy, sell or own any firearm, and
the government can take weapons away from you any time it
chooses.

The astonishing remarks came on Tuesday June 13, during oral
arguments in the case of U.S. v. Emerson in the Fifth
Circuit Court of Appeals.

The case involves a routine restraining order placed on
Dr.Timothy Emerson, issued while he was going through a
divorce. Since 1994, federal law has prohibited possession
of a firearm by a person under a restraining order — even
if, as in this case, there is no threat of violence.

Dr. Emerson – who was totally unaware of this obscure
federal statute, as was the judge who issued the restraining
order – was
subsequently arrested for owning a pistol. He challenged the
law. On March 30, 1999, U.S. District Judge Sam R. Cummings
of Lubbock, Texas declared that the statute, because it
prohibited gun ownership without finding any threat of
violence, violated Dr. Emerson’s Second Amendment right to
own firearms and was thus unconstitutional.

The U.S. Justice Department appealed, and the result was one
of the most dramatic gun rights court arguments in U.S.
history.

According to witnesses, Judge William L. Garwood, the senior
judge, seemed startled by the government’s statist
interpretation of the Second Amendment.

Here are some excerpts from the oral arguments, as recorded
by observer (and radio talk show host) Tom Gresham:

Judge Garwood (to U.S. Department of Justice attorney
Meteja): “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?”

U.S. Department of Justice attorney Meteja: “Yes.”

Metaja argued that the Second Amendment only applied to
members of the National Guard.

Judge Garwood: “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 added that even members of the National Guard had
Second Amendment protection only for guns issued or used in
the Guard.

Judge Garwood: “Membership in the National Guard isn’t
enough? What else is needed?”

Meteja: “The weapon in question must be used in the National
Guard.”

Metaja further argued that the federal government had the
right to regulate guns and gun ownership because of the
interstate commerce clause of the Constitution. Because a
firearm may have once traveled across state lines, the
government presumes a gun is somehow involved in “interstate
commerce,” thus giving the federal government regulatory
power over it.

In response, Judge DeMoss asked, “I have a 16-gauge shotgun
in my closet at home. I have a 20-gauge shotgun. I also have
a
30-caliber rifle at home. Are you saying these are ‘in or
affecting interstate commerce?’”

Meteja: “Yes.”

Witnesses say the judges seemed very unimpressed with the
federal government’s arguments. At one point, Judge Robert
M. Parker commented: “You shouldn’t let it bother your sleep
that Judge Garwood and I, between us, own enough guns to
start a revolution in most South American countries.”

A ruling can come any time this year, with the potential to
propel the issue -including the key question of whether the
Second Amendment does in fact protect an individual right to
keep and bear arms — into the Supreme Court.

(Sources: Neal Knox/Shotgun News; Tom Gresham;
WorldNetDaily.com)