Explore The NRA Universe Of Websites

APPEARS IN Legal & Legislation

Anti-gun Lobby Attempt To Influence U.S. Brief In Supreme Court On Emerson Second Amendment Case<BR> By Stephen P. Halbrook

Tuesday, May 14, 2002

           On May 6, 2002, U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson filed a brief in the Supreme Court recognizing that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is a personal right of law-abiding citizens.  The filing arose out of the decision in United States v. Emerson, 270 F.3d 203 (5th Cir. 2001), in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit held that the Second Amendment protects the right to possess a firearm, but upheld a law barring possession by a person subject to a domestic violence restraining order.

            When the case was before the 5th Circuit, the Reno Justice Department argued the Clinton Administration position that the only “right” protected by the Second Amendment was that of the States to maintain militias, not of any individual to possess a firearm.  After the 5th Circuit rejected that view in favor of the individual-rights interpretation but upheld the statute, Dr. Timothy Emerson filed a petition asking the Supreme Court to review that decision and to declare the law void.

            Given that Attorney General John Ashcroft on previous occasions expressed agreement with the individual-rights view, it was an open question as to how the United States would respond to Emerson’s petition.  Moreover, another petition was pending before the Court asserting the invalidity of a law based on the Second Amendment. [1]   The due date for the government’s response approached.

            The Violence Policy Center (VPC), which lobbies for prohibitions on possession of firearms, anticipated that the brief of the United States in Emerson would agree with the 5th Circuit that the Second Amendment guarantees individual rights.  In an effort to prevent such a brief from being filed, VPC retained Andrew Frey, who was Deputy Solicitor General during 1973-86, to write a letter to Solicitor General Olson urging that the United States stick with its Clinton-era position that the Second Amendment does not protect any individual rights.

            Frey wrote a lengthy missive on behalf of VPC to Olson dated May 2, 2002, just four days before the brief was due.  The letter was quickly posted on the VPC website, which features a regular “Ashcroft Watch” column which is critical of the Attorney General.  The following analyzes Mr. Frey’s letter.

            Frey asserts that any concession that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” means what it says would “appear to be a politically motivated action and would impair the credibility of your Office before the Court and in the eyes of the public.”  It goes without saying that the Clinton Administration’s anti-Second Amendment policies were nothing but political and that an honest appraisal of this portion of the Bill of Rights would restore, not reduce, credibility.  Frey described the VPC as “a national non-profit educational organization” concerned with “firearms violence,” but in reality it is a tiny extremist group which lobbies to criminalize firearm possession by law-abiding Americans and is completely unconcerned with violent criminals.

            Frey’s 15-page letter proceeds to make one misstatement after another to denigrate the Second Amendment.  Not once does he so much as quote its words: “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.”  Frey attacks the decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in United States v. Emerson, 270 F.3d 203 (5th Cir. 2001), but does not, and indeed cannot, refute that court’s textual analysis:

[T]he words “the people” have precisely the same meaning within the Second Amendment as without. And, as used throughout the Constitution, “the people” have “rights” and “powers,” but federal and state governments only have “powers” or “authority”, never “rights.” Moreover, the Constitution’s text likewise recognizes not only the difference between the “militia” and “the people” but also between the “militia” which has not been “call[ed] forth” and “the militia, when in actual service.”

Id. at 227-28 (citing constitutional provisions).

            Emerson upheld the law in question, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), which prohibits firearm possession by a person subject to a domestic violence restraining order.  The defendant in that case had notice and an opportunity to be heard, and Texas law requires that such restraining orders be entered only if the judge determines factually that the person is a danger.  (The district court in Emerson had interpreted the order to have been a routine, boiler plate order entered without factual findings.)

            Frey argues that Emerson’s holding that the Second Amendment protects individual rights was “inconsistent with a long line of decisions of the Supreme Court . . . .”  To the contrary, Emerson is consistent with every Supreme Court decision which so much as mentions the Second Amendment.  Frey lectured Olson that the government should not file a brief which, “like the Fifth Circuit, gratuitously explicates its interpretation of the Second Amendment.”

            If the Second Amendment is addressed, argued Frey, the government should contend that the amendment only protects arms-bearing in the militia.  This had been argued by the government in the 1939 Miller case involving whether Congress could tax and register machineguns and short-barreled shotguns.  Indeed, that brief argued that the right extended only to “the people collectively” and only “as members of the state militia.” [2]

            However, the Supreme Court in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), did not even address that argument and held instead that the Second Amendment test was whether “this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.”  307 U.S. at 178. The Court never suggested that the possessor had to be in the militia.  Moreover, the Court noted that historically “the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense” and that “these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.”  Id. at 179.

            The government brief in Miller did not represent the position of the United States.  That position was made clear two years later in the Property Requisition Act, which gave the President the power to requisition property for wartime use.  It declared that nothing in the act shall be construed:

(1)  to authorize the requisitioning or require the registration of any firearms possessed by any individual for his personal protection or sport (and the possession of which is not prohibited or the registration of which is not required by existing law),

(2)  to impair or infringe in any manner the right of any individual to keep and bear arms,

P.L. 274, Ch. 445, 55 Stat., pt. 1, 742 (1941).  This was a law duly passed by Congress and signed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt.  Obviously, the United States considered the Second Amendment to protect individual rights.

            Similarly, the position of the United Stat

TRENDING NOW
Kentucky: Committee to Consider Firearm Seizures Without Due Process

Friday, November 15, 2019

Kentucky: Committee to Consider Firearm Seizures Without Due Process

On Friday, November 22nd, the Kentucky state Interim Joint Committee on Judiciary will consider so called “red-flag laws.” Though no legislation has been introduced, such laws usually allow for Second Amendment rights to be suspended ...

Virginia Police Chief Advocates Ban on All Guns at U.S. House “Assault Weapons” Hearing

News  

Friday, September 27, 2019

Virginia Police Chief Advocates Ban on All Guns at U.S. House “Assault Weapons” Hearing

On Sept. 25, the Democrat-led U.S. House Judiciary Committee held a 3 ½ hour “hearing” entitled “Protecting America From Assault Weapons.” That framing of the issue underscored the erroneous notion that Americans need protection from ...

Bloomberg Bought Virginia Legislators Introduce Confiscatory Gun Ban

News  

Monday, November 25, 2019

Bloomberg Bought Virginia Legislators Introduce Confiscatory Gun Ban

Michael Bloomberg’s bought and paid for Virginia legislators have wasted no time introducing legislation that would make the Old Dominion’s gun laws worse than those of the billionaire’s home state of New York.

NRA&#39;s Statement on Second Amendment Sanctuaries

News  

Friday, December 6, 2019

NRA's Statement on Second Amendment Sanctuaries

Read the NRA's statement on Second Amendment sanctuaries. “It is the tyrannical nature of politicians that triggers sanctuary, not the other way around...”

Background Checks for Family Members?! Bloomberg-Bought Virginia Legislature Seeks to Ban Private Firearms Transfers

Friday, December 6, 2019

Background Checks for Family Members?! Bloomberg-Bought Virginia Legislature Seeks to Ban Private Firearms Transfers

Michael Bloomberg’s bought-and-paid-for new Virginia majorities have wasted no time introducing an extremist bill that would make the Commonwealth one of the most hostile states for law-abiding gun owners.

NRA-Supported Case Heard by Supreme Court

News  

Tuesday, December 3, 2019

NRA-Supported Case Heard by Supreme Court

The National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) says this week’s Supreme Court hearing on a New York City gun control law could ultimately strengthen the ability of law-abiding citizens to exercise their Second ...

Joe Biden Wants to Ban 9mm Pistols

News  

Monday, November 25, 2019

Joe Biden Wants to Ban 9mm Pistols

A week after he told voters that the Second Amendment doesn’t protect “a magazine with a hundred clips in it,” 2020 Democratic Presidential Candidate Joe Biden offered supporters more of his singular brand of anti-gun ...

NRA Files Joint Legal Challenge Against Firearm Storage Initiative Petition

Wednesday, November 27, 2019

NRA Files Joint Legal Challenge Against Firearm Storage Initiative Petition

On Friday, the National Rifle Association announced the filing of a joint legal challenge with the Oregon Hunters Association to contest Oregon Initiative Petition 40, which seeks to impose sweeping restrictions on the storage of ...

It’s Never Enough: Gun Control Advocates Won’t Ever Be Satisfied With Marginal Changes to Our Gun Laws

News  

Tuesday, December 3, 2019

It’s Never Enough: Gun Control Advocates Won’t Ever Be Satisfied With Marginal Changes to Our Gun Laws

When seeking to pass whatever the anti-gun flavor of the month is when it comes to gun legislation, anti-gun advocates often claim to be seeking only “reasonable” solutions. They often claim that if just one ...

Guide To The Interstate Transportation Of Firearms

Gun Laws  

Thursday, January 1, 2015

Guide To The Interstate Transportation Of Firearms

CAUTION: Federal and state firearms laws are subject to frequent change. This summary is not to be considered as legal advice or a restatement of law.

MORE TRENDING +
LESS TRENDING -

More Like This From Around The NRA

NRA ILA

Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the "lobbying" arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.