The Civil Right Liberals Most Want Destroyed

In a wonderfully one-sided view of the world, Deb Riechmann decries the wholesale destruction of the Constitution by John Ashcroft, except for his annoying kowtowing to the evil gun lobby. You know, the Constitution should be inviolate, except when it comes to those scummy gun owners. From the article:

--In response to an inquiry from the National Rifle Association, Ashcroft wrote that he believes the Constitution gives Americans the right to own firearms. That reversed the position of the Clinton administration, which argued that the Constitution provided such a right for groups, not individuals.

Well, bad old John Ashcroft is wrong, wrong, WRONG! Unfortunately, not in a way that would please Ms. Reichmann. The Constitution gives no one rights. In the thinking of the fellows who wrote the Constitution, the rights of man were endowed upon him by his Creator. The Constitution is just a way of writing this stuff down so everyone can keep track of it.

But Clinton, who was unsettled enough by having an armed military, and even more so by mere citizens being able to own guns, had no problem believing that the rights of man were bestowed by the state, and most assuredly viewed that silly old Second Amendment as just another vast right-wing conspiracy which needed to be neutralized.

Ms. Reichmann is apparently of the same mindset, but one wonders if this thinking would extend to her view of the First Amendment. I wonder if she would concede that the First Amendment does not guarantee her an individual right to be a journalist, only the right of groups of journalists, controlled by the state, to exist. (Sort of like a journalistic militia.) Or maybe if she had to submit to a series of questionnaires or background checks before she could exercise her rights. Or if she had to be registered in order to produce her writing. Nah, probably not.

Of course, the gist of the paragraph is not so much that the debate about the Constitution, but rather that Ashcroft had the audacity to OVERTURN a position espoused by the Clinton Administration! How dare he! For Shame! Of course, it was okay for Clinton to overturn policies of the Reagan/Bush and Bush/Quayle administrations, because they were “right-leaning.”

For what it’s worth, the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right; otherwise, it would be useless as a method for states to provide for their necessary security.

On to more evil Ashcroft maneuvering:

--He sought to shorten, from 90 days to 24 hours, the length of time the government can keep information compiled during background checks for firearms purchases. That was a partial victory for gun owners who say the information amounts to a national registry.

Sorry, folks, but the government was NEVER allowed to keep the NICS records for more than 24 hours. The Reno Justice Department made a decision to keep these records, in direct contravention of the NICS statute, with the blessing of the Clinton administration. Reno’s actions were illegal. Ashcroft’s proposal is for the Justice Department to comply with the law. And “gun owners who say” this was a national registry were simply stating the obvious—keeping the records of the NICS checks for any length of time makes the NICS a national registry.

Again, one wonders if Ms. Reichmann would appreciate the government treating journalists in a similar fashion. Finally,

--After Sept. 11, he prevented the FBI from using that gun information in terrorist investigations. Ashcroft says he was bound by laws and Congress should change them if it doesn't like them

The Justice Department has been a "bull in a china shop when it comes to civil liberties, stretching their authority past the breaking point," contends Mathew Nosanchuk, director of the antigun Violence Policy Center. "But the Ashcroft Justice Department walks on eggshells when it comes to the special interests of the gun lobby."

Once more, folks. The NICS data was never intended to be kept past 24 hours, it was never intended to be used to track people, and it was never intended to be passed on from agency to agency within the federal government. The fact that the Clinton administration allowed this violation of the law to continue does not mean that it was right, and whether Ms. Reichmann appreciates this or not, Congress made the law, and Ashcroft rightly places responsibility back on Congress if it doesn’t like the way the law reads.

Mr. Nosanchuk is right, too, the Justice Department has been stretching its authority. However, there are a couple of points to consider—

1. We’re at war--

2. The majority of Justice Department proposals to date are targeted at people who are in this country illegally--

3. Congress can act to limit the Justice Department if they don’t like what it’s doing--

4. Groups and individuals can sue the Justice Department if they believe they have been unjustly deprived of their rights--

5. Special interests? In Washington? Why, I’m shocked! I am just so relieved that the people who desire to eliminate all private ownership of guns don’t have any special interests groups to represent them. If there was such a group, they might even get to the point of advocating that the Justice Department should ignore the rule of law and keep and share records which they were supposed to destroy. Gosh, that WOULD be bad!

6. One more for the “I wonder” pile. If Ashcroft kept the records, but only investigated men with Arabic-sounding names and cross-referenced those records with immigration records, would Ms. Reichmann or Mr. Nosanchuk object? Yeah, I know. Silly question.

posted by Terry at 4:07:00 PM