Bushits Admin Reverses Ashcroft Interpretation of 2nd Amendm

Post anything and everything related to guns here...
Site Admin
Posts: 7781

Bushits Admin Reverses Ashcroft Interpretation of 2nd Amendm

Post#1 » Tue Dec 26, 2006 2:37 am

Wannabe DICkTAsTOR - POTUS JORGE BUSHit has shown the traitor he is to our COnstitution and the Oath that he Swore. He needs to be impeached now. You fucking balless Democommies, who have no GUTS to do the right thing because you are all Fuck buddies in the same bed. You are all anti-American fuckheads. WE THE PEOPLEs tolerance for your criminalities is coming to an end. You will fear the end of the hangmans noose. Your treason is your crime and the rope is the solution.

Friday, December 22, 2006
Bush Administration Reverses Ashcroft Interpretation of Second Amendment
http://waronguns.blogspot.com/2006/12/b ... croft.html
I received an email reply to my inquiry about the FAA declaring the Second Amendment a "collective right" in their recently issued spaceflight security regulations.

Dear Mr. Codrea:

Thank you for your comments on the human space flight requirements. This rule, including its security requirements, underwent coordination and review within the executive branch. It was reviewed and approved by the Executive Office of the President.

Your comments will be placed in the docket.


Laura Montgomery

Laura Montgomery
Senior Attorney
Office of the Chief Counsel
Federal Aviation Administration
(202) 267-3150

This is what I sent back:

Dear Ms. Montgomery,

Thank you for your reply. You did not say who in the executive branch signed off on the security requirements, but I must assume they would not authorize policy that conflicts with the chief executive's direction and approval. Just so I don't misconstrue the position you appear to have articulated, am I to understand that the president of the United States considers the Second Amendment to be a "collective right," and the "individual rights" opinion AG Ashcroft stated during his tenure is not the official position of the Bush administration? And who in the executive branch approved the requirements on behalf of the president?

David Codrea

When John Ashcroft penned his "individual rights" opinion, it made headlines around the world. Terms like "sea change" were thrown about, and we were told how significant the opinion was for gun rights. The Bradys went nuts. 18 state attorneys general followed suit and drafted their own letter of concurrence. And this was used to tremendous advantage to convince gun owners to throw their support behind the Bush administration.

But now we have it from one of the top attorneys in that administration that the "collective rights" language "was reviewed and approved by the Executive Office of the President."

Ladies and gentlemen, most will not realize this, but this is news, and it is significant. But chances are, this insignificant blog is the only place where you will learn of it, which means most gun owners will not.

posted by David Codrea | 7:28 AM

Ben said...

I will summarize this on my blog and link to your post as I hope everyone else does. This is truly unbelievable. Thank you for continuing to pursue the matter.
12/22/2006 9:03 AM
hairy hobbit said...

Ditto, all 3 readers will see it over on mine.

I'm just a bit worried now about what this might mean for people like H"W" Fincher should it get to the court as it is now. Also, given the stated support for an AWB renewal and the congress as it is I think bad times are comin'.
12/22/2006 11:00 AM
E. David Quammen said...

"We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable self-evident; that all men are created equal,& independent; that from that equal creation they derive in they are endowed by their creator with equal rights some of which are certain [inherent &] inalienable rights; that among which these are the preservation of life,& liberty, & the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these ends rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government shall becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, & to institute new government, laying it's foundation on such principles & organising it's powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety & happiness...."

- Thomas Jefferson, John & Samuel Adams and Benjamin Franklin,
Declaration of Independence, First Draft & Reported Draft, June 28, 1776.

"The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both."

- William Rawle, A View of the Constitution 125-6 (2nd ed. 1829).

There is (very limited) delegated authority to suspend Habeus Corpus. There is EXPRESS RESTRICTION against transgressing against NATURAL RIGHTS.
Such acts would be just cause for Revolutionary remedies....

"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void."

- Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (2 Cranch) 137 (1803).

"These gentlemen must here be reminded of their error. They must be told that the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone, and that it will not depend merely on the comparative ambition or address of the different governments, whether either, or which of them, will be able to enlarge its sphere of jurisdiction at the expense of the other. Truth, no less than decency, requires that the event in every case should be supposed to depend on the sentiments and sanction of their common constituents." - James Madison, Federalist No. 46, PARA I, 4th - 8th Sent.

"But, if you exert the means of defence which God and nature have given you, the time will soon arrive when every man shall sit under his own vine and under his own fig-tree, and there shall be none to make him afraid."

May 8th, 1778
12/22/2006 4:52 PM
Jay.Mac said...

Posted on my blog too and I put a link at the Other Side Forum and a comment over at Airborne Combat Engineer.

Hopefully word should spread around the blogosphere pretty quick.

Anyone a member of The High Road or any other gun boards?
12/23/2006 3:28 AM
crotalus said...

Well, that's pretty much it for either party for me. Neither one has a clue as to what the Constitution reall is anymore, so neither one gets my vote.

I remember hearing that Bush said, "It's just a G D piece of paper!", but I could never get anyconfirmation. This certainly argues in favor of his having actually said it.
12/23/2006 5:08 AM
David Codrea said...

Thanks folks.

Jay.Mac: Yeah, it's on THR and also on KABA. I sent it to WorldNetDaily, but no luck, which disappoints because I think that would be the perfect place to bust this open. It sure wouldn't hurt if a few of you decided to contact them independently on covering this.

Please continue spreading the word on this--it's a significant story with far-reaching implications for gun owners whether the "authorized journalists" recognize it or not. If you don't have a blog, just email the link to gun owners you know, and also contact other gun blogs you frequent and ask them to help swarm this, and as Jay.Mac said, post this to forums. One problem I have is the time I have for my activism is spent researching and writing--I just don't have time to promote this properly if I'm to get the other work done (I have important updates on the Fincher case I'm working on for today's release), so to those of you who visit WarOnGuns regularly--please help me spread the word whenEVER you think what is posted here merits it.

I doubt I'll hear back from Laura Montgomery until the new year (if at all) and will update as warranted.
12/23/2006 5:43 AM
M1Thumb said...

My two readers will know about it over at The Subversive.
12/23/2006 3:53 PM
Murdoc said...

12/23/2006 3:59 PM
Anonymous said...

It's over on www.dirtydozensbunker.com, too.
12/23/2006 4:40 PM
Scott said...

12/23/2006 7:17 PM
hairy hobbit said...

Think this might have anything to do with the Fincher case?

Perhaps once the media picks up on it, if they do, the "fine" folks at the top want to come off as "not so extreme" to the soccer moms and sheeple?
12/24/2006 2:26 AM
jomama said...

Looks like a "play with words" on
the part of the controllers to me.

Obfuscate and conquer.

Keep your eye on that "V", and the
one at the end of the barrel also.

Site Admin
Posts: 7781

Bush Administration Declares Second Amendment a "Collec

Post#2 » Tue Dec 26, 2006 2:39 am

These criminals can say any F-ing thing they want. Doesnt make it LEGAL, or Right. The elite and their paid for Prostiticians, will be the targets if these f-ers try a Katrina like Gun-ban and reclamaition. It will be the start of Americas 2nd American Revolution that is needed like yesterday.

Tuesday, December 19, 2006
Bush Administration Declares Second Amendment a "Collective Right"
http://waronguns.blogspot.com/2006/12/b ... econd.html

As in the NPRM, under Sec. 460.53, a space flight participant may not carry on board any explosives, firearms, knives, or other weapons.

XCOR inquired whether the FAA had the authority to impose security requirements under its statute and the U.S. Constitution. The Second Amendment to the Constitution provides that "[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.'' This right is not unfettered. Nearly every statute restricting the right to bear arms has been upheld. For example, in 1958, Congress made it a criminal offense to knowingly carry a firearm onto an airplane engaged in air transportation. 49 U.S.C. 46505. Additionally, nearly all courts have also held that the Second Amendment is a collective right, rather than a personal right. Therefore, despite the Second Amendment collective right to bear arms, the FAA has the authority to prohibit firearms on launch and reentry vehicles for safety and security purposes. [Emphasis added-DC]

The FAA has released its rules for tourists in space. And per the AP, if you wish to travel, you have to "promise not to sue the government." They issue a license, you sign a "waiver of claims" (Sec.440.17). So a Citizen would presumably have no standing if they wanted to challenge a ruling by unelected bureaucrats on Constitutional grounds. Pretty nice to be able to mandate yourself not responsible, that is, irresponsible, for that which you are, in fact, responsible.

The FAA reports to the DOT, and Secretary Peters reports directly to the President. It is inconceivable that she would allow policy directives to be issued against his will.

It looks like they didn't consider my comments when they crafted the final set of rules, but that's OK. Could I have some more Republican Kool-Aid, please?

I just sent the following to Laura Montgomery, Senior Attorney, Office of the Chief Counsel, Federal Aviation Administration:

Of course I will post any reply...

posted by David Codrea | 6:10 AM

crotalus said...

What bothers the hell out of me is that unelected goobermint officials lie outright about the court decisions. No court ruling I've read ever said the 2A is a collective right, with the exception of the 9th Circus.
12/19/2006 6:13 AM
Oldsmoblogger said...

Enforcing this little piece of genius would be a doozy, of course.
12/19/2006 6:29 AM
crotalus said...

David, I'll bet that Ms. Montgomery will respond the same way Newsome did: she'll sic the FBI and the BATFEces on you!

Oh, they'll enforce it just fine, thank you. They'll do full strip searches, including cavity searches, if they think they have to, and they will think they have to!
12/19/2006 10:49 AM
E. David Quammen said...

"The FAA has released its (arbitrary)rules...."

Collective right? Dream on;

Journal of the Senate of the United States of America,


“...On motion to amend article the fifth, by inserting these ords, 'for the common defence,' next to the words 'bear arms:'

“It passed in the negative.

“On motion to strike out of this article, line the second, these words, 'the best,' and insert in lieu thereof 'necessary to the:'

“It passed in the affirmative.

“On motion, on article the fifth, to strike out the word 'fifth,' after 'article the,' and insert 'fourth,' and to amend the article to read as follows: 'A well regulated militia being the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.'

“It passed in the affirmative....”

“...Resolved, That the Senate do concur in the resolve of the House of Representatives, on "Articles to be proposed to the legislatures of the states, as amendments to the constitution of the United States," with the amendments; two thirds of the Senators present concurring therein.

“Ordered, That the Secretary do carry a message to the House of Representatives accordingly.
12/19/2006 4:56 PM
Anonymous said...

crotalus said : BATFEces.

Maybe I don't get out much, but that's FUNNY....
12/19/2006 6:15 PM
hairy hobbit said...

just because they keep saying it doesn't make it true.
12/19/2006 8:14 PM

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest