FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

please visit the Second Amendment Foundation for complete Emerson
case news and information.

   DOJ CLAIMS NO INDIVIDUAL RIGHT TO OWN GUNS

In what could prove to be a landmark court case regarding the Second
Amendment and an individual’s right to own firearms, the U.S. Justice
Department claimed there is no constitutional right for any individual American
citizen to own firearms.

 The claim was made by Assistant U.S. Attorney William B. Mateja during oral
arguments before a three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
reviewing a lower court decision in U.S. v Emerson, a case that was heard in
Texas.  Mateja also told the judges that even membership in a National Guard
unit does not confer a right to keep firearms at home.  The government’s position
in this case appeared to startle many in the courtroom, even the judges.

 The case stems from a Texas divorce case involving Dr. Timothy Joe Emerson,
who was issued a customary restraining order from his wife during the divorce.
Since 1994, federal law prohibits a person who is under a restraining order, even
if there is no evidence of a threat of violence, from possessing firearms.  Dr.
Emerson, who was subsequently arrested for possessing a firearm while under the
restraining order, claimed his arrest was unconstitutional and violated his Second
and Fifth Amendment rights, as well as the 10th Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution.

Federal Judge Sam Cummings upheld the statute under the 10th Amendment and
ruled that the law in question was indeed a violation of Dr. Emerson’s Second and
Fifth Amendment rights.

 In his decision, Cummings wrote that the law in question was “unconstitutional”
in regards to the Second Amendment “because it allows a state court divorce
proceeding, without particularized findings of the threat of future violence, to
automatically deprive a citizen of his Second Amendment rights.”

 The judges hearing the appeals case are William Garwood, appointed by
President Reagan, Harold DeMoss, Jr., appointed by President Bush, and Robert
Parker, appointed by President Clinton.

 During the oral arguments of the case, Judge Garwood reportedly asked Mateja
if he thought the Second Amendment was consistent with a position that the
government could take guns away from the public, to which Mateja answered
“Yes.”

 In a follow-up question, Garwood asked if it was the position of the U.S.
government that persons who are not in the National Guard are afforded no
protections under the Second Amendment, to which Mateja answered “Exactly.”
Mateja then followed up and said that being in the National Guard was not
enough, but that the weapon in question must be used in the National Guard.

 Texas State Rifle Association Executive Director Randy Gibson, whose group
filed an amicus brief supporting Emerson in the case, stated that this case could
prove to be pivotal to the individual right to keep and bear arms.

 “We now have in public record a representative of the U.S. government saying, in
a court of law, that no one has a right to own firearms privately,” Gibson said.
“We are not talking about automatic or semi-automatic weapons, we are talking
about firearms, period—every shotgun, rifle, pistol. Any size, any type.”

Gun control groups have hinted at this assumption before, but it has never been
an issue in a court case involving the federal government to the extreme it is now.
Many groups and politicians have supported restricting handguns, but have
always asserted that hunters and target shooters who shot their sports with rifles
and shotguns were not the focus of the thousands of gun control laws on the
books.

 Gibson said this testimony should serve to awaken many who have stayed away
from the gun control issues being discussed across the nation, because this
position concerns the rights of individual citizens.

 “The Bill of Rights was, in fact, our first civil rights document.  Whether you own
a firearm or not, the position the government has taken in this case should deeply
trouble the law-abiding citizens in this country because it could lead to many
unintended consequences, many of which deal with the basic civil rights on which
this nation was founded,” Gibson said.

 Regardless of how the appeals court rules, one side or the other is expected to
appeal to the Supreme Court.  Should the high court decide to consider the case,
the court’s decision is expected to provide a definite interpretation of what the
Second Amendment really means.

                                       -30-
   Media Note: The TSRA is an 81-year-old organization who is the state’s leading
advocate of safe, legal and responsible firearms ownership.  For more information on
                   this story, contact the TSRA at (972) 889-8772.