Bush Administration Reverses Ashcroft Interpretation of Second Amendment

This is a discussion on Bush Administration Reverses Ashcroft Interpretation of Second Amendment within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; http://waronguns.blogspot.com/2006/1...-ashcroft.html Friday, December 22, 2006 Bush Administration Reverses Ashcroft Interpretation of Second Amendment I received an email reply to my inquiry about the FAA declaring ...

Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: Bush Administration Reverses Ashcroft Interpretation of Second Amendment

  1. #1
    VIP Member Array paramedic70002's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Franklin, VA
    Posts
    5,096

    Bush Administration Reverses Ashcroft Interpretation of Second Amendment

    http://waronguns.blogspot.com/2006/1...-ashcroft.html

    Friday, December 22, 2006
    Bush Administration Reverses Ashcroft Interpretation of Second Amendment

    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.

    Sincerely,

    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?

    Sincerely,
    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.
    "Each worker carried his sword strapped to his side." Nehemiah 4:18

    Guns Save Lives. Paramedics Save Lives. But...
    Paramedics With Guns Scare People!

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    VIP Member Array SammyIamToday's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    2,087
    Doesn't surprise me in the slightest.
    ...He suggested that "every American citizen" should own a rifle and train with it on firing ranges "at every courthouse." -Chesty Puller

  4. #3
    VIP Member Array SIGguy229's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Kommie-fornia-stan
    Posts
    6,998
    I don't know where to begin with this---

    There hasn't been anything issued by the AG.

    The original issue had to do with spaceflight--and discussing the policy with a DOT drone...and after reading some/most of the information, appears to be same restrictions while flying in an airplane.

    Very seldom does the (pardon the pun) left hand of gov't (DOJ) know what the right hand (DOT) is doing...as far as "coordination and review" goes--it means that the document (as a whole) was seen in someone's inbox and signed-off. I can almost guarentee this was not as thoroughly reviewed as we are led to believe.

    It was probably signed off by one of the President's science guys with a fancy title (probably left leaning--meaning, guns=bad)--and may not be aware of Ashcroft's decision, and didn't send the document to DOJ/AG for review (stuff like that takes months). I don't think this is an intended reversal of Ashcroft's decision...I think this is bad staff work and a flippant answer from a DOT drone.

    I do believe this should be followed through and the DOJ questioned/notified--and if needed, through a suit.

  5. #4
    Distinguished Member Array sniper58's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    1,631
    I just wrote the White House for clarification. I also wrote NRA-ILA with the link to the blog. Let's see who responds first.
    Tim
    BE PREPARED - Noah didn't build the Ark when it was raining!
    Si vis pacem, para bellum
    ________
    NRA Life Member

  6. #5
    VIP Member Array pogo2's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Southwest
    Posts
    3,149

    Tempest in a teapot?

    The government regulation in question says:

    As in the NPRM, under Sec. 460.53, a space flight participant may not carry on board any explosives, firearms, knives, or other weapons.
    I would consider this a non issue for the following reasons:

    1. How many people in the near future will be space flight participants in the US? Maybe 20 out of a US population of 300 million? And most of them are military, accustomed to being told whether to pack a gun or not. The chances of this even affecting the average person are nil.

    2. What do you need a firearm in space for anyway? What is there to shoot? There is no "crime in space" that I know of.

    3. The government owns the space vehicle. I guess they can set the rules. I don't allow smoking in my car, either.

  7. #6
    VIP Member Array Sheldon J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Battle Creek, Mi.
    Posts
    2,281
    Yep I read this before, no guns in space, N since the outer realm is the property of all it is kind of like international waters, N no bill of rights or anything, I wonder if that will apply to Phasers too?

    Now here is the big question would a conventional gun shoot in the vacuum of space?
    Wouldn't the decompression tend to unseat the bullet from the case, and since you need O2 to for the powder to burn wouldn't it just go click?
    Which brings us to special rounds electronically fired solid fuel, kind of like the sold fuel rocket round develops back (but not used anywhere) back in the late 60's.
    "The sword dose not cause the murder, and the maker of the sword dose not bear sin" Rabbi Solomon ben Isaac 11th century

  8. #7
    Member Array foreveryoung001's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    473
    Quote Originally Posted by Sheldon J View Post

    Now here is the big question would a conventional gun shoot in the vacuum of space?
    Wouldn't the decompression tend to unseat the bullet from the case, and since you need O2 to for the powder to burn wouldn't it just go click?
    Assuming they could design a cartridge that could hold up to the vacuum of space, and hold enough O2 within the cartridge itself.... it really leads to a whole new question of holster design.

    Space suits tend to be big and bulky, and I would imagine they would be a nightmare for concealment.

    I think you'd have to go with an OSS.... "outside the Space Suit", but what about a cover garment?.... maybe a level two high density zillium rocket booster pack from the outer rings of Nubar 4 in the Clanthenstin system....


    When the messenger arrives and says 'Don't shoot the messenger,' it's a good idea to be prepared to shoot the messenger, just in case.

  9. #8
    VIP Member Array SIGguy229's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Kommie-fornia-stan
    Posts
    6,998
    Pogo--my thoughts exactly...

  10. #9
    VIP Member Array pogo2's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Southwest
    Posts
    3,149

    Shooting in space

    Quote Originally Posted by Sheldon J View Post
    Now here is the big question would a conventional gun shoot in the vacuum of space?
    Wouldn't the decompression tend to unseat the bullet from the case, and since you need O2 to for the powder to burn wouldn't it just go click?
    The lack of oxygen in a vacuum would not be a problem, as the primer material and gunpowder contain their own oxidizer to support combustion, just as solid rocket propellant does. I used to design rocket motors, and the propellant weight was over 50% oxidizer, often ammonium perchlorate. Some solid propellant rockets are intended for use in a near vacuum environment, such as small rockets on an ICBM for separating or spinning warheads.

    As for the effect of vacuum on the ammunition, I believe that most ammo is sealed by a metal to metal crimp at the bullet end and the primer end, and that crimp would probably hold the fairly low pressure gradient of 14.7 psi between the air trapped inside the case and the vacuum outside the case. So I don't think that quality ammo should leak or bulge outward.

    But would you be shooting the gun in the vacuum of space, or inside the space vehicle where the air pressure was maintained at a level to support human life?

    Another advantage of firing the gun in space, if you were in a zero gravity environment, would be that you wouldn't have to allow for any drop of the bullet - it should fly perfectly straight without gravity pulling it back towards earth. And in a vacuum with no air friction, the bullet might fly forever, like a miniature asteroid or something.

  11. #10
    VIP Member Array SIGguy229's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Kommie-fornia-stan
    Posts
    6,998
    great....thanks Pogo...now you **will** shoot your eye out...

  12. #11
    VIP Member Array Sheldon J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Battle Creek, Mi.
    Posts
    2,281
    Quote Originally Posted by pogo2 View Post
    The lack of oxygen in a vacuum would not be a problem, as the primer material and gunpowder contain their own oxidizer to support combustion, just as solid rocket propellant does. I used to design rocket motors, and the propellant weight was over 50% oxidizer, often ammonium perchlorate. Some solid propellant rockets are intended for use in a near vacuum environment, such as small rockets on an ICBM for separating or spinning warheads.

    As for the effect of vacuum on the ammunition, I believe that most ammo is sealed by a metal to metal crimp at the bullet end and the primer end, and that crimp would probably hold the fairly low pressure gradient of 14.7 psi between the air trapped inside the case and the vacuum outside the case. So I don't think that quality ammo should leak or bulge outward.

    But would you be shooting the gun in the vacuum of space, or inside the space vehicle where the air pressure was maintained at a level to support human life?

    Another advantage of firing the gun in space, if you were in a zero gravity environment, would be that you wouldn't have to allow for any drop of the bullet - it should fly perfectly straight without gravity pulling it back toward earth. And in a vacuum with no air friction, the bullet might fly forever, like a miniature asteroid or something.
    I don't know cased rounds are designed to be water tight to fight contamination, but air having a lower viscosity can escape after a very short period of time so actually ignition could be an issue.
    Fire in 0 G should try to contain it's most efficient safe, a perfect circle kind of like a bubble made out of fire, this could also bring on a whole new can of worms in the ignition park, I bet the government has done a study on this, and have it figured out already.
    As to what to defend against ever seen "Alien" or "Predator" it is a big universe out there.
    CCW, why open carry is the game here, ever see "Star War's" all the good N bad guys open carry, but in a space suit even a near miss could be fatal in a vacuum, nick the suit and you are going to wonder how long you can breath, a emergency repair kit is the must have item here.
    Now we get to recoil so for every action their is a opposite and equal reaction, so you would need a compensation system I'll shut up now before I get accused of a hijack.
    "The sword dose not cause the murder, and the maker of the sword dose not bear sin" Rabbi Solomon ben Isaac 11th century

  13. #12
    VIP Member Array SammyIamToday's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    2,087
    Quote Originally Posted by pogo2 View Post
    3. The government owns the space vehicle. I guess they can set the rules. I don't allow smoking in my car, either.
    You mean the American citizens own the space vehicle. The government doesn't just magically create funding.
    ...He suggested that "every American citizen" should own a rifle and train with it on firing ranges "at every courthouse." -Chesty Puller

  14. #13
    Senior Member Array Musketeer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    701
    Quote Originally Posted by pogo2 View Post
    The government regulation in question says:



    I would consider this a non issue for the following reasons:

    1. How many people in the near future will be space flight participants in the US? Maybe 20 out of a US population of 300 million? And most of them are military, accustomed to being told whether to pack a gun or not. The chances of this even affecting the average person are nil.

    2. What do you need a firearm in space for anyway? What is there to shoot? There is no "crime in space" that I know of.

    3. The government owns the space vehicle. I guess they can set the rules. I don't allow smoking in my car, either.
    1. Bad Precedents are used to justify Bad Practices. The US GOv't claiming the right alone is a concern.

    2. Who cares. Do you know where you will land for certain? Roll this bad precedent forward 200 years and use it to keep colonists disarmed and owned by a foreign power.

    3. This applies PRIVATELY!!!!

    The rules issued Friday by the Federal Aviation Administration mandate training and medical fitness evaluations for crew members, preflight testing and other steps companies must take before getting licenses to carry paying passengers into the beyond.

    The rules apply to American companies launching from anywhere in the world, and to foreign companies launching from U.S. soil.
    The US Gov't just claimed the right to control anything it wants anywhere in the universe, private or public. THIS IS A PROBLEM. This makes as much sense as the Pope telling Spain and Portugal to split up the New World as their possesions.

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. NC law interpretation
    By supryze in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: May 19th, 2010, 08:05 AM
  2. Secret Bush administration legal memos released to public
    By mlr1m in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: March 12th, 2009, 12:51 PM
  3. Just another interpretation
    By P95Carry in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: September 7th, 2007, 12:58 AM
  4. Ohio lawmaker reverses position
    By Argus in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: May 16th, 2007, 12:23 PM
  5. Fema Reverses No Guns Policy
    By P95Carry in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: October 25th, 2005, 07:47 AM