Holder Revives Talk Of An Assault Weapons Ban

(CBS)

Attorney General Eric Holder was busy announcing the capture of more than 50 alleged members of the notorious Sinaloa Cartel yesterday when he unwittingly stepped into a larger debate about gun control.

Responding to a reporter's question on weapons' regulations, Holder said, "Well, 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. I think that will have a positive impact in Mexico, at a minimum."

Holder refused to speculate when legislation would move forward.
"There are obviously a number of things that are -- that have been taking up a substantial amount of [Obama's] time, and so, I'm not sure exactly what the sequencing will be," he said.

Gun rights groups seized on the comments.

"I think there are a lot of Democrats on Capitol Hill cringing at Eric Holder's comments right now," Wayne LaPierre, president of the National Rifle Association, told ABC News.

Lending credence to LaPierre's claims, The Hill reports that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi responded to Holder's remarks during her weekly press conference by stating, "On that score, I think we need to enforce the laws we have right now. I think it's clear the Bush administration didn't do that."

Pelosi's comments reflect the fact that Democrats may not now want a fight over gun regulations with so many other matters on the president's agenda.

Yet there is a reservoir of support for stricter gun control within Holder's party. Last week, over 50 Democratic lawmakers sent a letter to President Obama urging him to enforce a ban on importing assault weapons, citing rising gun violence in Mexico. The Sinaloa Cartel, which Holder was discussing at yesterday's press conference, is involved in drug and weapons trafficking in the U.S. and Mexico.

The assault weapons ban outlawed the purchase of military-style firearms such as AK-47s and Uzis. It was signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1994, with a clause requiring congressional reauthorization after ten years. Congress allowed the legislation to expire in 2004.

During the campaign, Mr. Obama sought to strike a delicate balance on the issue of gun rights.

He pledged to make the assault weapons ban permanent, promised to push for childproofing guns and said he wanted to close the gun show loophole, which permits sales of firearms at gun shows without requiring a background check.

But in mailers to sportsmen, the Obama campaign tried to make those positions more palatable to gun rights supporters, writing that Mr. Obama believed individuals had a constitutional right to bear arms. The mailers also stated that Mr. Obama would protect the rights of hunters and other Americans "to purchase, own, transport, and use guns."

This is not the first time that Holder has voiced support for tighter restrictions. In his confirmation hearings, Holder said he supported closing the loophole, banning cop killer bullets, and making the ban on assault weapons permanent.

Holder was confirmed by a vote of 75-21. Some Republicans refused to support him because of what they characterized as his hostility to gun owners' rights and lack of support for the war on terror.

[CraigBerkeley]

See what Gun Controller California and a lying California attorney, Gun Controller Steven T. Schoonover, and flip flopper James K. Olson did here to a Nevada citizen?s right to have a gun to protect herself after James K. Olson had broken into this Nevada citizen?s home! Gun Controllers Among Us, Marin County California Courts

Most liberal Gun Controller Marin County California has repeatedly thumbed their nose at the US Constitution, then imposed their illegal Gun Controller actions onto a Nevada citizen. What's next?

Lying California attorney, Steven T. Schoonover had the Nevada citizen served at 7:30 Thursday evening in Nevada for a 9 am the following Monday court in California and the California incompetent Gun Controller judge allowed that 1 day notice although illegal as have to be served more than 10 days before a hearing and furthermore it was to a Nevada citizen!

Three strikes you?re out lying California attorney, Gun Controller Steven T. Schoonover

http://reno.broowaha.com/article.php?id=3749
http://www.babelation.com/?q=node/1833
http://reno.broowaha.com/article.php?id=3630

[quantrail]

The government works for us and will be fired by us the people of the United States.Just imagine for one second what will happen when they try to take our guns away. There are roughly 117 million law abiding citizens that own firearms and who knows how many outlaws.Know picture all of us standing up to this government and ousting them.How many people in are military do you think would stand with them or the American people?This crap never ends,Mexico's drug problem is just another way for the dems to beef up support for their anti gun agenda,but guess what these machine guns are coming from South American drug cartels not USA gun shows,nice try but i am not buying it. Hey try to buy a fully auto weapon, see how far you get, and then report that.Assault weapon means to most a machine gun but in reality its a government name game for semi auto meaning one bullet at a time,they would love for us to just have a single shot muzzle loader.God bless America and God bless the NRA.

[joshsmithh22]

yes, imagine the world without guns. Where would we be right now, no freakin' shooting ranges, and we'd be really pissed. I'm really sure the military will help stand up for us to keep guns

[bmonninger]

I agree with the pro gun posts on this website. The fact that Democrats are so persistent to pass laws, in which ban firearms is completely viewed as treason, in my opinion. Our constitution was created for the purpose of preventing anyone, including government officials from altering; as well as, restricting the American citizens' rights, which are clearly stated in the constitution. Therefore, introducing laws in which interfere with our gun rights in any way what so ever should be stricken from anyone's authority, since it is anti-American. Our gun rights were established to assure the American people's ability to protect themselves; as well as, the United States. In addition, these rights were made to empower the citizens with the ability to overthrow the government when the government attempted to violate the Constitution of the United States. One would think that creating these anti-gun laws, which are currently being attempted, would be the last thing the Democrats would be working on, since there are way more important things they could be doing. Also, I find it disturbing that as soon as Democrats get into power; their first agenda is to ban firearms in one way or another. No one has the right to restrict our gun rights, especially government officials. Therefore, I believe if a government official attempts to introduce a law in which produces a negative effect on the American citizens' right to own and use a firearm, then the person should be removed from power. This is why the second amendment is in the constitution, because it is in place to protect us from the government; as well as, prevent government officials from abusing their power. However, it seems as if the government does not believe these mandates apply to them. If our country's rights are not meant to be provoked, why are government officials trying to do so?

[tmbrwolf40]

I would like to discuss the issue on the ban of assault weapons. I cannot understand the reasoning behind this. Other then the fact that most people who are pushing for the banning of such weapons, either know very little about them, or hate all guns in general. And are only using this as a first step in total elimination.
For this writing I will not include the group on total elimination. Due to the fact they are set on hating all guns, and it would be far more difficult to dissuade them of this hate. I will instead try to clear up some ignorance related to this type of firearm.
First off the term assault weapon is a very inaccurate term for these types of rifles. An example is the AR15 that is the civilian version of the U.S. militaries M16 rifle. Most people would agree that our sons and daughters that join the military are doing so to defend our country, not assault other countries.
Also the civilian version ONLY fires in semi automatic. This term means that it will only fire ONE bullet when you pull the trigger. It will not fire full automatic, which means when you pull the trigger and hold it the gun will continue to fire bullets very quickly. This can only be done with the M16, which looks the same, but is a very different rifle internally.
Another fact is that this firearm fires the 5.56NATO round (or the 223rem.) this will mean very little to nothing for people who do not shoot firearms. And since people do not like to sound ignorant when voicing their opinion this would be beneficial knowledge.
The U.S. military back in the 60?s Due to weight adopted the 5.56 round. Now this has caused a debate in the military since this change. The reason is the drop in size and weight also reduces the power of this bullet.
In fact this round his recommended NOT to be used for deer hunting because it is not considered powerful enough. This bullet doesn?t even come close to the knockdown or penetration power of most deer hunting rifles. It is actually considered a very weak bullet. So why do most people want this type of rifle? It is both very comfortable and fun to shoot! The ammo is very inexpensive due to it being so much smaller. The rifle has very little recoil or kick when firing, Due to its much weaker power. And it is a very reliable and accurate rifle to fire at the range. (Reliable also translates into safer to fire.) Also the bullet being weaker it will have much less chance of going through any barriers or traveling great distances.
The fact that this rifle looks military! Is really the only reason it is so hated by those who know nothing about it.
The other item most people argue about is the amount of ammo that the magazine can hold. This really does not mean anything. It?s more of an issue of putting restrictions on items. If I had 1, 30 round magazine or 3, 10 round magazines really what difference would it make. I would still be carrying 30 rounds of ammo.
I would really recommend that anyone who tries to argue either for or against such things. Will please take a little time out to gain some knowledge on whatever it is they are arguing about!

[mweed4]

The oath of office to the United States reads in part as follows: "I solemnly swear to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same." That reads, "all enemies foreign AND domestic." If a government official, from ANY branch of the government, Executive, Legislative, or Judicial, from the President on down, actively seeks to diminish, infringe, abrogate, or abolish, any portion of the Constitution, or its Bill of Rights, that person must be considered a domestic enemy of the Constitution and the people of America.

"The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men."
-- Washington State Constitution: "Section 24, Right to bear arms.

?No state shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and attach a fee to it.?
- Murdoch v. Pennsylvania, U.S. Supreme Court, [319 U.S. 105 (1943).]

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."
--Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787.

I know this, if they outlaw it, how hard it is it to make a high cap. mag,It is easy to make bullets. What are your batteries terminals made of. lead(car batteries) if not that, then push rods from old engines (high grade steel)We all work in places where we can make pieces of weapons, such as foundries, etc. Gun powder as well as primers are easily made too.The second that guns are outlawed, a very large majority of people will be doing this, as then they will know that our government truly has set out to enslave us, and is no longer with us. i hope they try it before mid term elections, as for sure the dems will be voted out quick as hell. The last time they tried it, the dems railroaded the vote. i sat disgusted watching it on C-span, then i promptly went out, with money i made from a commodities trade, and bought everything from sks's to a tec-9, with the recoil comp as well as high cap mags. The next election, the dems suffered a serious defeat. It will happen again. wheter dem or repub or independent, we all love our ability to own weapons. In their day, the founding fathers had "assault weapoms" for their time.People are fed up with these idiots, all it will take is a match, and that might just be the one. I have been buying cases of ammo, mags as I saw this coming. Not just me, just about every neighbor around me as well. people here are fed up with the government, in rural areas.There are secession movements in a lot of states, It would start small and balloon i think.What would happen if everyone didnt want to pay taxes, or went for a popular vote? how about the words to both president as well as congress, 'your fired". The country might be a better place, once it got sorted out.

[alexviking]

I guess this is Obama's way of continuing to stimulate the economy because now I'll buy an a semi-automatic rifle in .223 or .308 and 1000 rounds before they get banned.

Any sensible person who actually understood what the 1994 ban did would realize it did NOTHING except ban cosmetic features that had NOTHING to do with the fact the the guns still fired ONLY ONE round w/each trigger pull and used common ammo, much of it "standard" hunting ammo.

Lastly, I don't have to have any hunting reason to own these guns. Proving a guns sporting use is not required by the 2nd amendment!

As Larry Elder sez: "Facts to a liberal are like kryptonite to Superman."

[rjosprey]

Civilians of today even with the civilian style version of the assault rifle unlike in the American revolution have a much less lethal set of arms relative to the military. Our forefathers wanted the common man to keep tyrants and criminals inline by the second amendment and wanted to prevent abuse of the people by arming the people. Most believers in ?Gun Rights? believe they are human rights and not to be dictated by government. The second amendment was just a display or our God given human rights to defend ourselves.

Metacognition means to think about how we think, and to look at the results of things, attempts at limiting guns make people panic, buy arms, possibly disobey the law and would likely result in a huge increase in black market guns. Australia with no gun rights had the highest turn in of guns in modern times with 20% turn in. Germans buy illegal guns at an increasing frequency due to gun bans. Gun bans have never worked in modern times.

There are about 20,000+ gun laws, one more will just sell more guns, cause panic and push many to disrespect the law as anti-'Bill of Rights'.

[John98017]

Holder was a terrible choice for AG and he's opening a can of worms for Democrats at the mid-term elections. If they want to stay in power the Democrats need to steer clear of additional gun regulation, there is more than enough regulation on legal sales right now.

Holder's ridiculous assertion that banning legal sales of so called "assault" weapons to US citizens will someone curtail violence in Mexico demonstrates how inept he really is. This type of political manuevering is insulting to the American public's intelligence.

More insulting is the name "assault" weapon to hide their true intentions. Why don't they just say ban shotguns, rifles, and handguns? A Glock 21 handgun would be banned under the previous "Assault Weapon" ban of Clinton. When did a Glock become and Assault weapon. It's probably one of the most common choices for self-defense.

Write your Senator and Congress(wo)man to let them know where you stand on Holder's comments. Americans need to get more actively involved in the political process before they throw another $2 trillion of our hard earned money down the toilet and take our god given rights simply reaffirmed by the Bill of Rights.

[Rob459]

Both you and Holder have the law completely wrong (a very good reason why he has no business being AG). The law had absolutely nothing to do with the sale of any type of weapon (and, the fake political term "assault weapon" doesn't just refer to AK47s and Uzis, but to virtually all semiautomatic rifles and handguns, as well as some shotguns). It was a ban on MANUFACTURING only, not sales. All such weapons (and there are literally tens of millions of them in this country) would all still be perfectly legal to own AND SELL. Also, as the Heller decision makes clear, being by far the most commonly owned civilian firearm in the US, these weapons would be protected under the Second Amendment. Calling it a ban on sales is just a misrepresentation of the law in order to gain support for what is nothing more than an attempt to eliminate constitutionally protected firearms through a process of attrition.

Furthermore, what do legal semiautomatic civilian firearms sold in the US have to do with fully automatic military weapons (which Holder himself noted is the case) being used in the drug wars in Mexico? The guns being used in Mexico are illegal fully-automatic military weapons being smuggled in from South America and China, and are not available for legal civilian sale anywhere in the US. Using the tragedy of the Mexican drug wars to push this domestic political agenda is just another instance of lying in order to ban legal guns in the US.

Even if it was true, since when do the Constitutional rights of US citizens take a back seat to the internal problems of a foreign country? Mexico's drug war problems are not being caused by legal US civilian gun sales, they're being caused by government corruption, racism, poverty, and an immoral war on drugs which makes drugs so profitable that the legitimate government in Mexico can't help but be subverted by them. If the US really gave a damn about the drug wars, they'd legalize drugs, not ban guns. The former would solve the problem, the later will do nothing to help at all.