Holder dials back his commitment to pushing assault weapons ban

[MaineCWPtraining]

By Sam Youngman - 11/15/09

Attorney General Eric Holder is retreating on his commitment to pursue a controversial gun-control measure.

Holder’s statements, recently delivered to senators in writing, clearly indicate the Obama administration is in no rush to reinstate the assault weapons ban, which expired in 2004.

In response to written questions from Senate Judiciary Committee members, Holder adopted a much different tone on the ban than he did in February, when he said, “As President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons.”

That comment attracted many headlines, but the nation’s chief law enforcement officer is now downplaying his earlier remarks.

Noting his February statements, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) asked Holder, “Is it still your intent to seek a reinstitution of the ‘assault weapons’ ban?”

Holder stressed that he wasn’t breaking new ground earlier this year.

His response to a reporter in February, Holder claims, is not akin to “call[ing] for a new assault weapons ban, but rather restating the previously expressed campaign position on this issue.”

Regarding the administration’s next step, Holder stated, "The department is currently reviewing existing gun laws to determine how best to combat gun violence and keep guns out of the hands of criminals and others prohibited from possessing them."

Holder's response to Coburn is the latest in a series of mixed messages from Obama and his team after the president vowed during his campaign that he would seek to reinstate the ban.

The White House quickly distanced itself from Holder's comments in February, but the president said during a press conference in Mexico City in April that he has "not backed off at all from my belief that the assault weapons ban makes sense."

Obama acknowledged at the press conference that he was not "under any illusions that reinstating that ban would be easy."

A bi-national panel of former government officials and scholars issued a report on Friday recommending the reinstatement of the assault weapons band. It also called for a crackdown on the illegal export of guns to Mexico.

THE HILL

 

[tele_mark]

I'm sure it had nothing to do with the record gun and ammo sales over the last 365 days.

 

[JRyan]

I think they might have an inkling that we are quite fed up with these things.

Remember the politician's main goal in life is personal power, first and foremost. Holder and Co. know they risk that hold for the dems if they go for this.

 

[tele_mark]

Of course, if they're taking this approach and "abandoning" the AWB, watch for stuff like "guns and ammo taxes", and "firearm owner insurance".

 

[copterdoctor]

Of course, if they're taking this approach and "abandoning" the AWB, watch for stuff like "guns and ammo taxes", and "firearm owner insurance".

Yup, and also watch for treaties between the US and other governments or the UN. The restrictions in these treaties may trump your civil rights and introduce bans without any legislation in Congress.

 

[Lucas McCain]

I dont believe it for a second, these weasles have an agenda and nothing (in their minds) is going to change it.

 

[Monadnock]

His Admin would be on this issue like white on rice if not for the TARP/Health Care Reform/Unemployment/Cap-in-Trade/sale-a-palooza-auto sales, etc.

Bush's Admin was just setting their sights on the Internet porn industry about the time that the AG was covering the breasts on statues in Gov buildings. Then 9/11 happened. No more time for porn-smashing.

Obama's Admin is simply too busy raping us in other ways.

You can only fight on so many fronts before you're flanked.

 

[Davidk]

Don't believe the POS for a second.

 

[RKG]

Yup, and also watch for treaties between the US and other governments or the UN. The restrictions in these treaties may trump your civil rights and introduce bans without any legislation in Congress.

Wrong.

In the first instance, no treaty binds the United States unless ratified by a two-third vote of the Senate: Art. II, section 2:

"[The President of the United States] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur . . . ."

(You may recall that after Billary's Vice President signed the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, the Senate refused to ratify it and it never became a treaty of the United States. You will excused for not remembering that the Senate refused ratification of the Treaty of Versailles twice, in 1919 and 1920, and it rejected the Law of the Sea Convention in 1960.)

Second, the Constitution includes treaties made and ratified as above with the Constitution and federal statutes as those enactments constituting the "supreme law of the land" and binding on the states. Article VI:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." (Emphasis added.)

Congress is bound by the Constitution. Therefore, for the same reason that Congress could not by enacting a statute subvert a constitutional right, the Senate, by ratifying a treaty, could not subvert a constitutional right. To hold otherwise would be to sanction constitutional amendment without the safeguards and procedures specified for such amendment by the Constitution itself.

 

[LoginName]

I think they might have an inkling that we are quite fed up with these things.

Remember the politician's main goal in life is personal power, first and foremost. Holder and Co. know they risk that hold for the dems if they go for this.

Oh, I definitely think they're worried about it and wish the subject would just go away.

Back in early May, McCarthy had stated that she would resubmit the AWB "next week" (via her bootlicker Gillibrand, IIRC). That was what... 7 months ago... nothing yet.

Earlier in the year, Feinstein also stated in an interview that she would seek a new AWB "at a time of her choosing"... still nothing.

Don't get me wrong... I have no illusions that these people are bluffing and have forgotten about/given up on it. The majority of the Dems in Congress would probably just like to see the handful of major league gun grabbing asshats STFU and sit down.

If and when anything comes along, I don't think anything will materialize until 2012 and later (assuming the current Congress and Obama are still in control).

One thing that could be promising in our favor is going to be how the SCOTUS rules in the upcoming MacDonald vs Chicago case (and I think Congress is waiting on the decision also before they decide how to proceed).

 

[Windwalker]

This administration is like the little toy car that quickly changes direction when it bumps into a wall. Their goal has not changed, only their tactics. As another poster suggested, they'll try to tax away our 2nd amendment right, or maybe through creation of new regulations by their proposed head of OSHA. They won't back away, they're commie pit bulls.

 

[M1911]

I think many Dems remember the midterm elections in 1994, when the Republicans made huge gains. Bill Clinton attributes that to fallout from the Assault Weapons ban.

While some Democrats wave the assault weapons ban banner now and then, their colleagues quietly bring them back to reality. While I think they all believe in gun bans and want to implement them, they know they will get trounced in the next election if they do it. So I don't think we'll have a national assault weapons ban any time soon.

We might have stronger bans here in MA at anytime, however, since the majority of MA voters are anti-gun, IMO.

 

[DCR]

I think many Dems remember the midterm elections in 1994, when the Republicans made huge gains. Bill Clinton attributes that to fallout from the Assault Weapons ban.

While some Democrats wave the assault weapons ban banner now and then, their colleagues quietly bring them back to reality. While I think they all believe in gun bans and want to implement them, they know they will get trounced in the next election if they do it. So I don't think we'll have a national assault weapons ban any time soon.

We might have stronger bans here in MA at anytime, however, since the majority of MA voters are anti-gun, IMO.

Agreed 100%. Dems aren't going to risk losing control of Congress over something like an AWB. It simply doesn't mean that much to them.

 

[Chantry]

This isn't a Democrat vs. Republican thing, it is an anti-gun politician vs. a pro-gun politician thing.

There are quite a few pro-gun Democrats in Congress, they just don't get the media coverage the the anti-gun politicians get.

 

[wahsben]

I tend to believe that both parties are playing us. One gets in and makes a big mess of everything violating our rights and taking some of those rights apart and the people say we will fix them for doing that we will put in the other party and sure enough the other party gets in but then what happens? They too make a mess of things and violate other rights of ours and we just keep going back and forth between the 2 corrupt parties.
Do you notice that we never get back what they have stolen from us. That when one of these 2 parties get in they never right the wrongs of the previous party?
They both need to be thrown out, that is our only hope.

 

[Finalygotabeltfed]

When the government ceases to be of, for and by the people and ceases to obey its constitutional limits, it can, should and will be rightly ignored.

 

[GrendelKhan]

This isn't a Democrat vs. Republican thing, it is an anti-gun politician vs. a pro-gun politician thing.

There are quite a few pro-gun Democrats in Congress, they just don't get the media coverage the the anti-gun politicians get.

+1
And that is why I still have some hope that this fight can be won. We need to convince more people on the other side, and just take this issue off the table. It is about rights, and that is that, and so it should resonate with most (enough) people on all ends of the spectrum. And those who want to take away people's rights should be vilified by all.

2A supporters should be "big tent". I dream of a future where people who think like Holder are too embarrassed to speak up about it.

 

[Erebus]

I also believe they will try to back door ban us.

What really bothers me about this Health Care bill is it's insurance mandate. If they can get the SCOTUS to agree that they can force us to buy health insurance can they get the SCOTUS to agree to force us to buy huge liability insurnace policies to own guns?

I have seen proposals as high as $100K of coverage per gun. I would expect many of us could not afford to own more than one or two guns if that was the case. I'm sure many people probably couldn't afford to own any at all.

 

[Friday]

I also believe they will try to back door ban us.

What really bothers me about this Health Care bill is it's insurance mandate. If they can get the SCOTUS to agree that they can force us to buy health insurance can they get the SCOTUS to agree to force us to buy huge liability insurnace policies to own guns?

I have seen proposals as high as $100K of coverage per gun. I would expect many of us could not afford to own more than one or two guns if that was the case. I'm sure many people probably couldn't afford to own any at all.

If they do that, do you think that the insurance companies, who are at the root of resistance to health care reform, might just have a say in that? I think it may also open a can of worms. If we are to insure each gun like we insure multiple vehicles (despite the fact that we can no more shoot more than one gun as we can drive more than one car simultaneously), what might the rates be? Shall we compare the lethality of guns, to say, automobiles? I think they would find cars are better killers of other people in the US than guns. I'm pretty sure the number of automotive deaths far outstrip the number of illegal shootings in this country.

Of course, using big insurance's logic,they would mean they should increase auto rates....

 

[TomH]

Congress is bound by the Constitution. Therefore, for the same reason that Congress could not by enacting a statute subvert a constitutional right, the Senate, by ratifying a treaty, could not subvert a constitutional right. To hold otherwise would be to sanction constitutional amendment without the safeguards and procedures specified for such amendment by the Constitution itself.

It hasn't stopped them before.

 

[mikem317]

They'll go after them. Obama and his minions have at least another thirty-eight months left.

 

[Erebus]

If they do that, do you think that the insurance companies, who are at the root of resistance to health care reform, might just have a say in that? I think it may also open a can of worms. If we are to insure each gun like we insure multiple vehicles (despite the fact that we can no more shoot more than one gun as we can drive more than one car simultaneously), what might the rates be? Shall we compare the lethality of guns, to say, automobiles? I think they would find cars are better killers of other people in the US than guns. I'm pretty sure the number of automotive deaths far outstrip the number of illegal shootings in this country.

Of course, using big insurance's logic,they would mean they should increase auto rates....

Well if they do mandate gun insurnace it would be a huge payday for the insurance companies. The number of people injured by guns is so small compared to cars that it would be almost free money for the insurnace companies. The ratio of payments to payouts would be so lop-sided that it might be a way to convince them to lighten up on their opposition to the "health care reform" being proposed.

And there's the "bonus" of the number of guns people can afford to own and the number of people that can afford any at all dropping like a rock.

 

[Coyote33]

...A bi-national panel of former government officials and scholars issued a report on Friday recommending the reinstatement of the assault weapons band. It also called for a crackdown on the illegal export of guns to Mexico.

THE HILL

Could someone explain this one? What is a bi-national panel of former government officials and scholars?

 

[Kevlar]

Could someone explain this one? What is a bi-national panel of former government officials and scholars?

Bi-national = 2 nations = U.S. and Mexico



http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/hotstories/6719763.html

Stop border flow of guns, panel urges
U.S.-Mexico experts want ban on powerful arms

By DUDLEY ALTHAUS
HOUSTON CHRONICLE
Nov. 14, 2009, 8:56AM

MEXICO CITY — The U.S. government should reimpose a ban on automatic weapons sales and clamp down harder on the illegal export of guns and cash to Mexico, a binational panel of scholars and former government officials urges in a report released Friday.

Mexico in turn must do more to stop to flow of illegal drugs and immigrants to the United States, in part through the creation of a unified and effective border police force, the report says.

Both countries should tighten the cooperation already being implemented under the program that has earmarked $1.4 billion in U.S. funding for Mexico's anti-narcotics efforts, the panel says. The study by the Binational Task Force on the United States-Mexico also urges increasing the number of border crossings, making it easier to get securely through them.

The U.S. members of the panel include former U.S. ambassadors to Mexico Tony Garza and Jeffrey Davidow, as well as Robert Bonner, one-time head of both the Drug Enforcement Administration and Customs and Border Protection.

They were joined by former senior Mexican officials as well as academics and business leaders from both sides of the border.

“Mexico and the United States have long squandered opportunities for constructive collaboration along their shared border,” the report states. “The costs have been massive — billions of dollars in economic losses, crime and violence, and the widespread sense that the border is broken or dysfunctional.”

Its recommendations come as the Mexican government struggles to control the country's powerful and well armed crime syndicates.

But the report's suggestions face tough sledding in both countries.

The Obama administration is focused on health care reform, the economy and more pressing foreign policy priorities. Getting an assault weapons ban through Congress is politically next to impossible, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and other senior U.S. officials have warned in visits to Mexico this year.

And in Mexico, President Felipe Calderon has been struggling to get budget and economic initiatives through an opposition-controlled Congress amid the country's worst recession in 80 years

 

[Friday]

If friggn' Mexico wants a bans on arms, why the feck don't they seal up their all-too-porous borders? Why is it the USA's responsibility to correct problems that Mexico does not want? Kee-rice, solve that one and you solve the immigration problem as a bonus..

 

[Erebus]

If friggn' Mexico wants a bans on arms, why the feck don't they seal up their all-too-porous borders? Why is it the USA's responsibility to correct problems that Mexico does not want? Kee-rice, solve that one and you solve the immigration problem as a bonus..

Because their entire economy is based on illegals working illegally in this country and sending the money back to Mexico. They can't seal the border for the same reason you can't cut your own head off.

 

[dcmdon]

The U.S. government should reimpose a ban on automatic weapons sales and clamp down harder on the illegal export of guns and cash to Mexico

Hmm. The sales of new automatic weapons to civilians has been banned since '86.

Or do you think its a typ-o. Whats really dangerous here is how the media blurs the lines between automatic and semi-automatic, as well as between assault rifle and assault weapon.

In this case, I really do believe its a typ-o. Look at the source. A Houston paper. Last time I checked all the houston papers were pro-gun.

Don

 

[Friday]

Because their entire economy is based on illegals working illegally in this country and sending the money back to Mexico. They can't seal the border for the same reason you can't cut your own head off.

Well, then, I suggest they STFU, and deal with it as the cost of doing business...

 

[theGringo]

I remember reading a while back about a scheme that Rahm Emanuel was cooking up that would bind the US to treaty terms without Senate ratification. At the time it was being discussed as a naked power grab. Can't find it now, though.

At any rate, I have no doubt that the lights are burning late in the White House as Obamacrats seek an end-run around the Second Amendment. Whether a tax approach, a treaty approach, a renewed AWB with elimination of inheritance provisions ... they know they must greatly reduce the quantity and quality of arms in private hands in order to acheive their long term goals. It might not be something sudden and dramatic. These people can wait us out, for now. Who knows what we might call "pre-ban" 20 years from now.

 

[M1911]

This isn't a Democrat vs. Republican thing, it is an anti-gun politician vs. a pro-gun politician thing.

There are quite a few pro-gun Democrats in Congress, they just don't get the media coverage the the anti-gun politicians get.

While there are pro-gun Democrats, a far larger percentage of Republicans are pro-gun than Democrats. Furthermore, many (most?) congressmen will follow their leadership, even if it means compromising their values. The Democratic leadership is clearly anti-gun. The Republican leadership may not be as pro-gun as we'd like, but they're a far sight better than Nancy Pelosi and Barak Obama.