Michael B. Mukasey was sworn in as attorney general this afternoon, less than a day after winning Senate confirmation despite Democratic criticism that he had failed to take an unequivocal stance against the torture of terror detainees.
Robert Levy had advocated Mukasey disclose his position on the Second Amendment. I'd wondered the same thing, and expressed concerns that he backs Rudy Giuliani for president, and is backed in turn by Chuck Schumer for the top law post.
Presumably we now have an indication of Mukasey's position on 2A, albeit from an unlikely source, Senator Dick Durbin, in his explanation of why he opposed confirmation:
Take another unsettled legal question: whether the Second Amendment secures an individual right to bear arms. Here is what Judge Mukasey told me: “Based on my own study, I believe that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms.”Note I'm not focusing on the waterboarding charges here or making any proclamations about the desirability of this appointment or Judge Mukasey's potential as AG. I'm merely pointing out his reported position on the Second Amendment, something I have been looking for but have not previously found.
In other words, Judge Mukasey agrees with the Bush Administration when it comes to retroactive immunity and the Second Amendment.
Excluding all other considerations, and with the caveat that this is based only on the rhetoric, it would appear gun owners could have done worse.
UPDATE: Looks like The Washington Post knew about his leanings over a week ago and we all missed it, although they don't have the above quote. Here's the relevant bit from their story:
Mr. Mukasey's 172 pages of written responses to senators' questions leave no doubt that he is a staunchly conservative lawyer. He believes the Second Amendment bestows an individual right to bear arms.Realize, of course, that what WaPo considers to be "staunchly conservative" is what, in 1960, would have been considered a mainstream Democrat. And note the all-too-common "bestows" assumption, as if an unalienable right independent of government proclamation is so difficult a concept to grasp.
26 comments:
Based on all prior indicators, statements, and affiliations I find Mukasey's position on the Second Amendment very surprising.
I would have bet money that he would have a polar opposite view from that espoused in the quote.
I remember when Ashcroft lied the same way.
That would certainly be encouraging news. Nothing huge, by any means, but definitely the answer I would hope he give.
I remember when Ashcroft lied the same way.
Durbin would be an odd choice of people to tell that particular lie to--being as he is a notoriously virulent, statist gun hater--one who had a voice in Mukasey's confirmation. Then again, he probably knew that Durbin would vote against him no matter what he told him.
I can see no incentive for Muk to lie to Durbin on the issue of whether the 2nd A protects an individual right. People lie when the truth won't get them what they want. How could this particular lie, if it was one, help Muk with Durby?
Is not logical.
Mukasey could have figured Durbin was not going to support him, no matter what, but there were other people listening who the lie would influence.
Or, Mukasey could be telling the truth as he sees it, and the specifics of what he believes will make him what /we/ consider "anti-gun".
Phillep
I would like to ask Mukasey if he supports the absolute right of everyone to own and to carry any type of firearm everywhere they go, in any way they see fit, openly or concealed, without asking permission from anyone, ever.
His answer to that question would tell me clearly if he believes the Second Amendment secures an individual right or outlines a privilege.
Kent, we also have a right to free speech, but we can't go around saying whatever we want, however we want, whenever we want. You can have restrictions on rights without reducing them to "privileges."
And why isn't this the first question that the ranking Republican asks? "Does the Second Amendment secure an individual right?" If the answer is no, pass on the other questions.
Anon, with speech there are consequences for abuses that cause damages, but no prior restraints as with RKBA.
"Take another unsettled legal question:..."
I'm sorry, this is NOT an unsettled question to anyone who can read the English language at a comprehension level consistent with current educational expectations of one entering junior high school.
There is no "Gee Fadda, what If I sin, but I fly BACK over the international date line THEN give my confession?" crap.
ANY attempt to confiscate tools ALSO useful for revolution is cause for revolution.
No question!
Mukasey only says that, without quoting its text in any way, shape or form. Unless he holds an extreme view on universal right of purchase and trade, or universal right of carry, or dissolution of the BATFE, I say he's no good. And I'm 100% positive he's no good.
Jim Wilson
blog.myspace.com/jawilson3
Anonymous, you say "we also have a right to free speech, but we can't go around saying whatever we want, however we want, whenever we want. You can have restrictions on rights without reducing them to "privileges."". Do you really understand that "privileges" are the polar opposite of "rights"? If there really is a "right to free speech" then we can "go around saying whatever we want, however we want, whenever we want." AND we can then live with the consequences of abusing that right. You do not have your tongue cut out upon entering a theater to render you incapable of shouting "Fire!!"
Any other view and you are not very pro-gun.
Thank you David C. and Kent. I keep making this point over and over but it never sinks through willingness of surrender to those who do not wish to understand that a right abused (when it causes unwarranted harm to others) may be punished. A right exercised may not be punished or priorily restrained in expectation of abuse.
That makes the law a law against accused, but not proven, thought.
Not only not proven to have been thought, not provable nor unprovable. Which makes it impossible to defend against if the accuser is the decider of what one intended.
Good point on the prior restraint issue. To come down from the conceptual mountain to the real world, though: Guns misused can kill people. Speech misused...er, rarely kills people. A reasonable person can see that, practically speaking, we might treat the two rights differently.
For example, yes, Kent, we don't cut people's tongues out to prevent them from shouting "fire" in a crowd. But we also don't cut off people's trigger fingers to prevent them from shooting people, so I think your example might be a bit extreme.
1st Amendment gives us freedom of the press. Do we ever restrain how much access the press has to public officials? All the time - they have to go through a process before they're allowed into the White House, for example. Granted, the process to get a gun permit has a greater effect, but it has the same goal: safety. I'm just not sure a right regulated is reduced to a privelege.
The issue goes beyond prior restraint. Another example: 5th Amendment, right to property. We now have Connecticut seizing private land to put to private use (Kelo v. City of New London). I don't agree with that. Yes, we chip away at rights in different ways - does that mean we only have a "privilege" to our private property now? I hope not.
All I'm saying is, we don't put all the "rights" except gun rights up on a pedestal. We regulate different rights in different ways, and that's just the way it is. I own a 9 mil, I like guns, but that's just the way it is.
I suppose I am a lunatic since I put every right on a pedestal. A right is absolute. A government can choose to respect that right or to violate it.
The first amendment does not 'give' us the right to a free press, it merely codifies that people have the God-given right to be free to express ideas, even if they are contrary to what others (ie the gov't) think. The right comes from God not from the enumerated right. 'They' do treat the 1st and 2nd differently. I want the leftist gun-grabber to treat them the same. I want them to howl when my 2nd amend. rights are trampled the same way they would if my 1st amendment rights were trampled. Restricting access to people is not restricting the 1st amendment. My access to you (Anonymous) is restricted but I can write whatever I want about you. If it's libelous you can sue, but I can still write it. Restricting visits to the White House is about security not about the 1st amend. That is a strawman argument. The uproar is heard around the world if our gov't tries to restrict a porn etc movie, book, whatever, before it's published, because that is restricting the 1st amendment. The gov't is by that act saying you must first get permission from us to publish, print, distribute. That is the ongoing problem with the RTKBA. They are prior restricting the God-given right to at least 1) property 2)self-defense, maybe some others. Punish those who libel/slander. But don't tell them what to say. Punish those who misuse the 2nd. Leave me alone until such time as you have reason. And as for as the speech misused rarely killing people I totally disagree. Islamic imams are constantly preaching jihad to followers who then go out and self-detonate in a group of school children. Sam
*Anonymous sez - Good point on the prior restraint issue. To come down from the conceptual mountain to the real world, though: Guns misused can kill people. Speech misused...er, rarely kills people. A reasonable person can see that, practically speaking, we might treat the two rights differently.
I'm back again. I'm a reasonable person. I live in the real world. And excuse me, but this horse manure of "guns misused can kill people" just drove me over the edge. For crying out loud ANYTHING MISUSED CAN KILL PEOPLE. But we don't prior restrict EVERYTHING just because some idiot could, might, maybe, accidentally on purpose kill someone with it. Another strawman argument. I addressed the speech killing issue in my previous Anonymous Sam comment above. I'll cut back on the coffee a tad. Sam
No Sam, you are not a reasonable person or you would not find it acceptable to deny my civil rights.
I am a reasonable person, I will do my utmost to stop you.
StraightArrow, I am not the Anonymous #1. I am the Anonymous who signs the end of each post as "Sam". You and I are on the same side. This post here is my 3rd post on this thread. I tho't my first two comments were refuting Anon #1. Is your comment sarcasm? I haven't had my coffee yet and I could be missing something. Your comment to my post is why I don't really like to make long comments. Evidently I don't 'splain myself too well in print. SA, re-read the comments ending with my name - Sam and let me clarify any questions you have. I'm a semi-regular poster on WoG and I don't want to get a bad reputation by having my posts misunderstood. Plus I don't want to get David mad at me either. Sam
SA, Sam was quoting a prior post. The first para beginning "Anonymous sez" was a quote. Then when his "voice" took over he announced he was back. Quotation marks would have helped, and will help avoid future misunderstandings but if you go back and read it again you'll see.
You are, in fact, both on the same page.
Good points, Sam. Yes, of course, speech misused can lead to death. But not directly, you know, unless you're a banshee. Guns can directly cause death and serious injury. That's the difference between prior restraint of speech (secondary consequences) and prior restraint of guns (direct consequences).
I see your side. You want the "no prior restraint" restrictions that are applied to speech to be applied to guns as well. O.K. You base this on the fact that guns are a God-given (inalienable) right, just like speech. Personally, I think speech is a bit more fundamental than guns. It's also less directly dangerous. Based on those two reasons, I'm find with a little prior restraint on the latter (assuming you refer to permits and such as prior restraint).
-notsam
Notsam: Hitler never personally killed anybody, nor did Charles Manson. They issued orders.
Deleted one off-topic post that had nothing to do with this thread. No non sequitur thread hijacking allowed.
It IS becoming difficult to differentiate between Anon's, but to offer that speech is not as dangerous means the poster simply cannot understand precisely how it was that untold millions of lives have been lost by a mere whisper to an aide or the signing of a death warrant. All wars begin with oration. Someone once even said that the pen was mightier than the sword, so I guess HE got it.
I don't want to belabor the point. David will get tired after awhile. Just so we're clear, I never said 'guns' were a God-given right. I said the rights to property and to self-defense were God-given rights. Guns are property and a means of self-defense. Speech is not any more fundamental than self-defense. A person must be able to be secure in his person
(ie defended or self-defended) in order to also be able to say unpopular things. No protection equals no speech.
And you really should buy more guns. Just one 9mm is not enough.
Post a Comment