JOHN D. ASHCROFT

ATTORNEY GENERAL John D. Ashcroft promised during his confirmation hearings to adhere to legal precedent, even when it was at odds with his personal beliefs. But this week, he abandoned a 60-year-old precedent in favor of his personal view that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to own a gun.

The switch in the government's position came in footnotes to briefs filed by Solicitor General Theodore Olson in two Supreme Court cases. The briefs said the government no longer believes that the Second Amendment is limited to protecting gun ownership related to the preservation of a militia. Instead, the government now believes that the amendment protects the rights of all individuals to possess and bear arms.

The reversal probably won't have much impact on the two appeals to the Supreme Court. The Justice Department said those appeals involve reasonable laws designed to keep guns away from unfit persons and restrict guns that are suited to criminal misuse. One case involved a person with a domestic violence restraining order, the other a person who owned two machine guns.

But, in the long run, the shift provides powerful legal ammunition for the National Rifle Association in its legal battle to elevate the Second Amendment as a protector of individual rights. It's legal guesswork how this could play out. But Mr. Ashcroft's view could be used to attack the constitutionality of laws banning concealed weapons -- like the Missouri law that Mr. Ashcroft and the NRA unsuccessfully sought to overturn three years ago with Proposition B.

The Second Amendment has been dormant since a 1939 Supreme Court decision upholding the right of the government to ban machine guns. The court said the amendment protects only rights that have "some reasonable relationship to the preservation of efficiency of a well-regulated militia. "

But conservative academicians began challenging that interpretation of the Second Amendment more than a decade ago. More recently, Justice Clarence Thomas suggested the court should revisit the issue. And, last fall, the federal appeals court in New Orleans ruled that the 1939 decision was no longer persuasive. It ruled that the Second Amendment protects individual rights. Mr. Ashcroft sent a letter to all federal prosecutors saying he agreed with that decision.

To the NRA, Mr. Ashcroft's position on gun policy is a "breath of fresh air to freedom-loving gun owners." To those concerned about the way guns contribute to violence, Mr. Ashcroft's stance marks an alarming retreat by the federal government from sensible gun laws that protect people without outlawing gun ownership.

Changes in society sometimes justify abandonment of an outdated legal precedent. But the daily carnage in the cities that results from cheap handguns is reason for more gun control, not less. Mr. Ashcroft hasn't shown that gun laws are hurting society or keeping anyone from owning guns. His reversal is a triumph of ideology over sound precedent and a betrayal of his public promise. Mr. Ashcroft pledged to be a servant of the law, not a servant of the NRA.