search
top

Holder Calls for New Assault Weapons Ban

According to MS-NBC:

At a press conference announcing the arrests, Holder also suggested that re-instituting a U.S. ban on the sale of assault weapons would help reduce the bloodshed in Mexico, where last year 6,000 people were killed in drug-related violence.

U.S. officials have a responsibility to make sure Mexican police “are not fighting substantial numbers of weapons, or fighting against AK-47s or other similar kinds of weapons that have been flowing to Mexico,” Holder said.

So we are going to lose our gun rights because our government can’t secure its borders, and the Mexican government can’t secure law and order and weed out corruption in its military, which is no doubt a large source of firearms for drug cartels.

Interestingly enough, it was not in his prepared remarks, so it must have been in a question. This is from the Administration, folks.  Obama may be willing to burn political capital on this issue.  Get ready.

UPDATE: Exact quote [previous article changed, quote now can be found here] “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,” Mr. Holder said. “I think that will have a positive impact in Mexico, at a minimum.”

Remember 1994.  That’s all I have to say.  We’ll do it again.  Don’t believe us?  Try it.

UPDATE: Wayne LaPierre will make an appearance on Cam and Company in a few minutes to talk about this.  Tune in to NRANews.com

76 Responses to “Holder Calls for New Assault Weapons Ban”

  1. Skullz says:

    [Obama may be willing to burn political capital on this issue. Get ready.]

    I am ready…… are you?

    III

  2. Sebastian says:

    If you mean ready for political action, absolutely. Ready to start a civil war? No.

  3. Skullz says:

    What makes you think that there is ANY political chance if the new, permanent AWB comes to the floor? Consider number of people who contacted their congress-critters to oppose the “stimulus” package – and it flew through. I know MANY people who were against the package AND the bailouts that couldn’t care less about an AWB. I knew many people who were against the Holder confirmation and could care less about the AWB We can count those folks out of this political fight.

    Don’t get me wrong, I’ll still call, write and email – but I also live in reality. And the reality is that there are many of us that are done compromising, finished backing up, and have said “enough!”

  4. Sebastian says:

    It’ll be tough, I’ll grant you, but it’s not impossible. Look at the politics of the issue. You have Harry Reid running the Senate, who’s facing a pretty tough race in Nevada come 2010. Reid voted against the 1994 ban, and he’s the Majority Leader in the Senate. There’s a good chance Obama doesn’t have the votes to pass it if he tries. We might be able to hold a filibuster.

  5. Skullz says:

    I sincerely hope and pray that you are right, Sebastian.

  6. Tim says:

    When I was rushing to get my AR after the Obama election, everyone said I was crazy. “Nobody will go after the guns yet they have to fix the economy first”.

    If this does go through they better hope there is a grandfather clause.

  7. ThomasD says:

    Would we be starting a civil war? Is defending your rights ‘starting’ a war? How about the fools intent on infringing on those rights? Aren’t they the ones doing the starting?

    I’m reminded of something someone once said, something about ‘long trains of abuses.’ Give me a second to recall. Maybe I’ll just Google it while there’s still time.

  8. Letalis Maximus, Esq. says:

    Get the e-mail addresses and phone numbers of as many Congress members that you can. The way to stop this in its tracks is to flood their offices with calls and e-mails. Jam the phone lines and crash the servers.

    Right now, I don’t think any of the new gun control bills have any sponsors. When Congress members do sign up as co-sponsors (and the NRA, GOA, and other websites are keeping track), flood them with contacts. Remind them of Tom Foley (D-WA) and 1994. They may not like guns, but they like the hell out of staying in office.

  9. Skullz says:

    [they better hope there is a grandfather clause]

    That’s a bullshit way to look at this. An abridgment of an inherent right is an abridgment for all people.

    Creating a special class only serves to distort the market (see the GCA 1968 and 1986) and creates criminals out of future generations.

  10. countertop says:

    I don’t think Obama has votes to get it out of the house. He clearly doesn’t have votes to get it out of the Senate.

  11. Sebastian says:

    I hope I’m right too. You have to figure Webb and Tester are no votes. Reid will vote no if he knows what’s good for them. Specter is a likely no, since he already has us all pissed at him. Snowe and Collins could be a problem. Gillibrand I can’t honestly tell you. I’d like to say she’s no, but I don’t know if I would count on her given her political circumstances. Tim Johnson is a likely no. Mark Warner is probably a no. So just off the top of my head, that’s six Democrats who are possible no votes.

  12. Linoge says:

    Sebastian – Just so you know, the Washington Times article no longer has that exact quote contained within it. Of course, the article says “UPDATED” at the very top, so I have to wonder if it got relegated to the bitbox…

  13. Navy Vet from Jersey says:

    I saw something interesting on NBC news with Brian Williams tonight. During their story on all of these arrests of Mexican drug gangsters, NBC soon segued into how “90%” of their firepower comes from American gun shops and gun shows.

    The reporter then help up an AK variant type rifle with one of those post-1994-ban thumb hole stocks to show one of these such weapons. Then a “home video” that was reportedly seized from a “Mexican drug cartel member” was shown, with the reporter saying that it showed a cartel member taking target practice with a “.50 caliber rifle”.

    The only problem with this reporter’s commentary at this point was that the “home video” clearly was showing someone firing an M2 Browning machine gun from a tripod.

    This NBC report also showed footage of other weapons seizures by the Mexican authorities, and I could clearly see a sizable number of 40mm projectile grenades meant for the M203 launcher.

    I don’t think this was any clueless mistake by NBC news. They are trying to deliberately create the false impression that a “straw buyer” for some Mexican gangster can go into any gun shop or gun show and walk out with belt-fed heavy machine guns and grenade launchers by the truckload, which of course is the furthest thing from the truth.

  14. Sebastian says:

    Thinking of some more no Democrats – Bob Casey, Max Baucus, Evan Bayh, Mark Begich. I’m not sure the votes are there if you think about more.

  15. Tim says:

    [That’s a bullshit way to look at this. An abridgment of an inherent right is an abridgment for all people.

    Creating a special class only serves to distort the market (see the GCA 1968 and 1986) and creates criminals out of future generations.]

    I completely agree. I’d be hoping for a temporary ban with “loopholes”.

    My point is I wouldn’t turn any guns I already have in if it came down to it.

    The market was already distorted since the National Firearms Act of 34.

  16. Sebastian says:

    Would we be starting a civil war? Is defending your rights ’starting’ a war? How about the fools intent on infringing on those rights? Aren’t they the ones doing the starting?

    Did we start a civil war when Bush started locking people up in military prisons without trial or recourse to the courts? No, that was fought in the courts, and won. We will do the same with this. As long as there is a political recourse, you stick with that. Even if this passes, you can still repeal it.

  17. Linoge says:

    And now time for my own update – the quote can still be found here: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=6960824&page=1

    I wonder for how long?

  18. Skullz says:

    [I’d be hoping for a temporary ban with “loopholes”.]

    No, no, no, no, no!!!

    We should not be ‘hoping” for any ban – unless it’s ban on any more gun laws.

    How can ANY self respecting gun owner “hope” for ANY kind of a ban?

    Sebastian,
    Tim and his ilk are why we’re f**ked and are why some congress critters will feel just fine with being re-elected if they vote for an AWB. Provide a loop hole for a enough Tim’s to feel good and it’s done.

  19. Sebastian says:

    I agree with Skullz. Now is not the time to be hoping they decide to use lubrication. We should not send signals that lesser bans will make us happy. The message needs to be, pass any kind of semi-auto ban, and Congressional Democrats, and any Republicans that go along with them, will be sorry they did so.

  20. Sebastian says:

    MarkJ:

    If you want to restate that without the personal insults, following the rules outlined in the comment policy, I won’t delete it.

  21. Tim says:

    Its not that I’m HOPING for a ban at all. If its coming I don’t believe we can stop it.

    I seriously doubt that Obama and his lot care if we are happy or not. Sending in letters to reps gets nothing but generic replies. They don’t care.

    What I’m saying is that when a law is passed that lacks a grandfather clause dealing with assault weapons is where I personally draw the line.

  22. Sebastian says:

    I understand what you’re saying. Writing actually does matter, you might get a generic e-mail, but that’s not indicative that it doesn’t matter. In fact, if they have a form letter, it means they get it a lot.

    Politicians care about two things, money and votes. If you are a campaign donor, you matter more than just a constituent, but they assume that if you take the time to contact them, you represent a lot more people out there who feel the same way but who don’t write. Remember the hierarchy. Someone who doesn’t write isn’t even on the radar. The trick is to get as high on that list as you can manage.

  23. Max says:

    I think that we all knew that this was coming. The rectitude of the AWB is an article of faith among many Liberals. This is red meat for Obama’s core supporters.

    Frankly I hope that they play-up the Mexican connection when promoting this. A lot of people who might not actively oppose another AWB will still be uneasy w/ the proposition that we should curtail our civil rights to serve a foreign nation.

  24. I am surprised 25 comments didn’t identify the real step that needs to be taken to break the justification Mr. Holder offers.

    Abolish the insane war on drugs in the US and you will do more to eliminate the undesirable unintended consequences than the holding pattern suggestions made by the commenters above.

    http://www.leap.cc/cms/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=71

  25. countertop says:

    Here’s my whip count of Senate Democrats in play

    10 will likely vote no

    Baucus, Max – (D – MT)
    *Bayh, Evan – (D – IN)
    Begich, Mark – (D – AK)
    *Casey, Robert P., Jr. – (D – PA)
    *Feingold, Russell D. – (D – WI)
    Landrieu, Mary L. – (D – LA)
    *Reid, Harry – (D – NV)
    Tester, Jon – (D – MT)
    Warner, Mark R. – (D – VA)
    Webb, Jim – (D – VA)

    1 is unkown to me, but is a likely no since he is up again in 2010
    *Bennet, Michael F. – (D – CO)

    9 are in the air.
    *Dorgan, Byron L. – (D – ND) Up for re-election
    Johnson, Tim – (D – SD) Saw what happened to Daschle
    *Gillibrand, Kirsten E. – (D – NY) Historically with us, but up for re-election
    Hagan, Kay R. – (D – NC) Represents NC and my guys say she is good blue dog dem.
    *Lincoln, Blanche L. – (D – AR) Up for re-election. WOn’t make dumb vote, but will easily win and so might not care
    Nelson, Ben – (D – NE) He represents a very conservative state, but fall out for Omaha shooting is unknown.
    Pryor, Mark L. – (D – AR) See Blanche Lincoln, above
    Udall, Mark – (D – CO) I’m doubtful, but possible
    Udall, Tom – (D – NM) I’m doubtful, but possible

  26. countertop says:

    oh, a * in the post above means they are facing re-election in 2010

  27. Sebastian says:

    Casey is up in 2012, not 2010. He was elected in 2006.

  28. illspirit says:

    Oh, look, the ABC story in the update also says he’s calling for a ban on “cop-killer bullets.” How many of the otherwise pro-gun Dems (and Repubs for that matter..) might fall for that trick, or get pressured into it by accusations that they hate the police?

    Seeing as nobody seems to be reading bills before they vote on them anymore, it might be easy to slip Kennedy’s previously attempted ban on all rifle ammo past them.

  29. Sebastian says:

    Thane,

    I agree with you, but that proposal isn’t going anywhere politically.

  30. Abolish the insane war on drugs in the US and you will do more to eliminate the undesirable unintended consequences than the holding pattern suggestions made by the commenters above.

    Yep. As long as you have a War On Drugs, you will have a War On Guns to go with it. Of course, our new Attorney General *excuse me while I spit* is just as much in favor of that continued War On (Some) Drugs, so there’s not much hope for change there either.

  31. phlegmfatale says:

    Um, how does a weapons ban here positively impact Mexico? I mean, don’t LOTS of illegal things come from there already?

  32. countertop says:

    yes, thanks Sebastian. That was a cut/paste error. Please feel free to go back and correct.

    Our goal needs to be to ensure we hold the Republicans. Cant afford to have Snow/Collins/Specter walking out on us again. Have to give them what is necessary to hold them firm.

  33. Chuck B. says:

    This is such a sick joke that I can see coming as the rationalization the hoplophobes in Congress and the Obama camp are going to use for banning our semi-automatic rifles – to save the corrupt-tinged Mexican government, military forces, and police from the Mexican drug cartels.

    What’s next? Are they also going to say that every other gangster, insurgent rebel, and terrorist in all of Latin America gets his select fire assault rifle, grenades, 60mm mortars, and RPG’s from our local gun shops too?

    If these Mexican drug cartel people are getting busted off of the coast of California with custom-built submarines from Colombia that can smuggle drugs into this country by the metric ton, I seriously doubt that they would ever need our local gun shops to get even a mini two-shot derringer or a box of .22 LR cartridges.

  34. J. Dock says:

    I think it is wishful to assume that Rahm the (steak) Knife won’t go pay a friendly visit to all of the “in play” Democrats listed. Those “no” votes are likely to evaporate.

    A political backup plan is a really good idea here.

  35. Daniel M. says:

    No, you have to hope that if they try to pass this, that they include as many guns as they possibly can, and that they include no grandfather clause. We have to hope that they totally overstep their bounds and unite gun owners against them. Otherwise, they’re just going to try to divide and conquer and it may work, especially if they effectively employ all of their fake gun rights groups.

  36. Sebastian says:

    I have no doubt he will, but politicians want to hold on to their seats, and for a lot of them it means keeping that A rating.

  37. Aaron says:

    One thing that should be mentioned here is the dems, like it or not, are in control and it just might be political suicide for them to not vote yes on a AWB. How miserable could “Pop-Up” Pelosi make it for some of these guys if they don’t tow the line. And do you really think that Ried would dare cross swords with Obama and vote no? Remember this is Chicago politics we are talking about here. Simply, it’s not about the “people” right now; it’s about Obama and the dems winning and doing what they want

  38. J. Dock says:

    I don’t want to come across as negative, as it does no one any good. (I fail at this ALL the time but… I’m really trying here.)

    All I want to do is try to determine a reasonable political plan that takes into account the pressure that these Democrats will be under – we need to start figuring out the next line of defense right now.

    A lot of the finance guys were caught out when they said “Treasury won’t do this or that, it isn’t within their power” and then the rules got changed on them over and over in the last year. It killed them.

    I don’t want us to fall prey to the “they’ll play by the rules” line of thinking.

  39. chris says:

    i say let em pass it… there is ZERO way that it would hold up under heller and any challenge to it also guarantees incorporation…

    then we can slap it all over the place that all those democrats voted for an unconstitutional bill.

  40. Sebastian says:

    Chris:

    I wouldn’t count on that. I’d like to think so too, but judges aren’t prone to doing the right thing. I do think a court challenge is warranted if it passes, but it’s far from a sure outcome.

  41. ATLien says:

    “Did we start a civil war when Bush started locking people up in military prisons without trial or recourse to the courts?”

    Strawman.

    You don’t sound like you dig liberty when you say you will fight tyranny with e-mail.

  42. Dave says:

    Countertop. Bayh can’t be counted on. In Indiana the guy is made from teflon. He would have to do a Martin Sheen from the Dead zone to lose an election in Indiana, no matter how he votes.
    I know. I am one of a ridiculously small number of people that have voted against the man.

  43. We just need to make a big noise. Most Democratic politicians are scared to death of the pro-gun public. It has been widely pointed out that Al Gore may very well have lost his home state of Tennessee (and thus the Presidency) due to his anti-gun stance. In most states, and now believe that anti-gun policies are political losers. We have Heller now, and we have the fact that the previous “assault weapon” pan had no measurable impact on crime. If push comes to shove half of the Democrats in office don’t have the political stomach for it. Still, we have to ROAR.

    yours/
    peter.

  44. Link says:

    Best case scenario: Berg has the evidence which proves that Barry Soetoro is not eligible to be president, and this international charade is shut down.

    Worst case scenario: Berg has the evidence which proves that Barry Soetoro is not eligible to be president, and Lieberman or Pelosi take over.

    Reaility: things are bad regardless of how the sealed court case turns out. Obama is a domestic enemy, either way, and he swore an oath to defend us from his own kind. Do you really think he meant it?

    The short version: emails or bullets, in the short term, we are all hosed!

    I wish I could garner up some more optimism, but the only realistic plan I have for the next eight years is that I need to keep working and buy more ammo!

  45. alan says:

    If Mexico is having such a problem with guns being smuggled in from the USA they should build a fence to keep them out.

  46. Sebastian,

    Why don’t you just ban me instead of deleting my comments? It would be more intellectually honest.

  47. Sebastian says:

    Strawman.

    You don’t sound like you dig liberty when you say you will fight tyranny with e-mail.

    How is it a strawman, rather than a valid analogy? Locking people up without a trial is pretty extreme in our system. Petitioning the government for a redress of grievances is how it works in our system, at least until there’s no possibility of redress. If you want to live in a country where they settle political disputes with violence first, and e-mail later, you’re welcome. But it’s not a country I want to live in.

  48. Sebastian says:

    Mike, when your comments can follow the comment policy listed above, I won’t delete them. If it makes you feel any better, there were 4 or 5 in this thread I axed in addition to yours.

  49. Destroyer of Worlds says:

    Any reliance on the recent Heller decision is misplaced. Heller said that individuals have some individual right to firearms. It DID NOT state that a ban of a class of weapons was unconstitutional, nor did it say that “reasonable gun control laws” might not be constitutional. (Scalia’s phrase, not mine.)

    It said that D.C. was violating constitutional rights by banning all handguns and otherwise over legislating long guns. It did not say that you could get your favorite handgun, it simply said a ban of ALL handguns was unconstitutional. So, with that type of language do you get your high capacity mag Glock? Probably not, but you can use your cap and ball muzzleloader to stop the home intruder. How can that be interpreted as a “win” under the Heller decision.

    Finally, to the rest of the gun owners who believe Heller finally protected our rights, I have a question for you? When did you buy your last Class III? See, if Heller said the right was absolute, then the 34 and 68 acts would have went away. Unfortunately, they did not.

    The constitutional right under Heller is not absolute. Once every law abiding gun owner recognizes this, then they can plot against the terror at hand.

  50. Jdude says:

    ATLien:
    [“Did we start a civil war when Bush started locking people up in military prisons without trial or recourse to the courts?”
    Strawman.
    You don’t sound like you dig liberty when you say you will fight tyranny with e-mail.]

    I am very impressed with all those feds you killed over the indefinite detentions, warrantless wiretaps, brady instant background check, 94 awb, NFA,…

    I won’t speak on behalf of this site’s author(s). I am not here to prove a point. I am here to win. Starting a shooting war is not the way to win.

    Getting incorporation, eliminating NICs, and eliminating local or federal registration is.

    -Jdude

  51. sgtstotz says:

    In 1803 Chief Justice John Marshall wrote in MARBURY VS MADISON, “A legislative act contrary to the Constitution is not law”. we do not derive OUR RIGHTS from any written word of man; they are BIRTHRIGHTS bestowed upon us by our ALMIGHTY CREATOR.

  52. Sebastian says:

    That might be true, but it doesn’t keep you from going to jail between the amount of time the law is passed to when it’s ruled unconstitutional.

  53. Sebastian says:

    There are still people in jail over the Clinton ban.

  54. Old Trooper says:

    No one needs to vote for an outright ban. Expect them to tax firearms & ammunition at a prohibitive rate. In that way it is just a tax. They are capable of sneaking that into one of their Omni
    Huge 1,000 page bills that no one ever reads before the vote.

  55. Troll Feeder says:

    Why do our elected and appointed officials think that Mexicans come to the U.S. to purchase weapons?

    Do they think that Mexicans actually prefer to cross an international border to overpay for heavily monitored and regulated, substandard equipment that they will have to smuggle back home?

  56. Sebastian Said,
    February 26th, 2009 at 10:03 am
    “That might be true, but it doesn’t keep you from going to jail between the amount of time the law is passed to when it’s ruled unconstitutional.”

    You’re assuming that it WILL be found “unconstitutional”. And if it isn’t? Why you’ve already surrendered your property and will be presented with a fait accompli. You won’t have to worry about it though. Those of us who refuse to comply will already be dead, on the run and/or fighting in the streets. Your weapons will be declared forfeit anyway. Use ’em or lose ’em, boys. Use ’em or lose ’em.

  57. Sebastian says:

    If they pass a confiscation bill, that changes the ball game, but I don’t think that’s what we’re looking at. I think the worst we’d be looking at is grandfathering with registration, and I wouldn’t encourage anyone to comply with that.

  58. Joe Bookmaker says:

    What’s the problem? I have a shotgun, rifle, and two pistols. The old ban never hurt, didn’t stop me from hunting, never went further, etc. Who needs an HK or AK47 to hunt? We have the right to bear arms, but it doesn’t say what type. I don’t think our rights are infringed here. I don’t care that I can’t own a live 155mm howitzer, by the logic here we should be able too.

  59. Sebastian says:

    You want to take that attitude, Joe, that’s fine. But I won’t be around to help you fight when they come after your hunting rifle. Or pardon me, your highly accurate sniper rifle.

    So called assault weapons are used for self-defense and shooting competition on a daily basis in this country. Millions of people own M1 Carbines, AR-15s, The AK variants, M1 Garands, all which would be effected by the last proposed ban in the last Congress.

  60. Sebastian says:

    Oh yeah, Joe, and once I’m out of the gun rights movement, because they have my guns, I will gleefully watch the Humane Society of the United States destroy your sport, and I won’t lift a finger to help.

  61. Matt says:

    Joe,

    What is it with gun owners like you that apply a “needs” test to ownership of property? You’re worse than Holder and you’re actually willing to sell out fellow gun owners based on what you think is suitable for me without my consent or input.

    At least Holder’s honest about his intentions. You’d let them take or restrict ownership of my property based on your own prejudices.

    The 2nd Amendment says NOTHING about need or hunting for that matter. Liberals I at least understand. Quislings I can’t abide.

    Enjoy hunting while you can because honestly, I think they’ll wind up finishing you off first before they finish off the rest of us HK, AR, AK owners. Another decade of your assuming hunting is safe is wrong. Lead ammunition bans for hunting under the auspices of “environmental protection” are gaining traction. Having the right to hunt won’t matter if they outlaw all the ammunition you would use to do so.

    Then what will you do, eh?

    Lastly, do you see ANYONE here talking about howitzers? This is NOT ABOUT HOWITZERS. This is about semi-automatic rifles just like your precious Remington 750. That’s what they’re talking about. There is NO DIFFERENCE between that gun and an AR-15 or AK pattern gun except in appearance. Trust me, they permanently the ARs, they will be coming after the semi-autos they “missed”.

    If they push for an HR.1022 type ban, guess what pal, your Remington goes too. And if Ted Kennedy gets his way, your previous Winchester .30-30 lever action just became a decoration because he wants to ban its ammunition along with every other centerfire rifle cartridge there is.

    PS: You can legally own a howitzer. Always have been assuming you can afford the piece and the $200 for each shell.

  62. ProudMarineDad says:

    Q: Sir, we need you to show us your firearms.
    A: What firearms? I don’t own any stinkin’ firearms!

    If it comes down to exchanging fire with thugs on my property threatening my life or my family, and afterwards the nanny state wants to charge me for using a firearm to protect myself, then I am prepared to be happily convicted – and alive.

    We are rapidly losing our freedoms, our prosperity, and our God-given right to the pursuit of happiness under the most liberal administration ever empowered in our nation’s history.

    Isn’t it time for a new Sons of Liberty movement? Where’s the closest Tea Party?

    Un.Stinkin.Believable.

  63. Tim says:

    Joe,

    I drive a cheap sedan with a 2.0L 4-cylinder. I drive my car to get from point A to point B.

    I see people on the roads driving 600hp corvettes that by your logic are unnecessary. Why does anyone need a sports car when our national speed limit is 55 mph? Ban these sports cars and I can still go from point A to point B.

    I don’t care for these sports cars but I will always fight for the right to own them. Once you let the nanny government start restricting our rights on any area we all start to suffer.

  64. Karl says:

    I’ve got an idea! Let’s build a wall between the US and Mexico to stop the Southward flow of guns!

  65. Arnie says:

    Joe – The Second Amendment applies only to military combat arms because those are what the armed citizens (militia) need to secure the freedom of their State and individuals from federal usurpation and tyranny. They are also what our Founders needed to throw off the “federal” tyranny of London. It does NOT protect your hunting or sporting rifles – the 9th and 10th Amendments and the common law protect your right to those arms. – Arnie

  66. Sebastian says:

    Arnie,

    I don’t think there’s any distinction in the Second Amendment between “sporting” arms and military “arms”. Even Heller did not make that distinction. A Remington 700 deer rifle is just as protected by the Second Amendment as an M16 should be.

    US v. Miller is essentially dead letter now. The Supreme Court indicated they are retreating from the Miller test in Heller.

  67. Tom says:

    “US v. Miller is essentially dead letter now. The Supreme Court indicated they are retreating from the Miller test in Heller.”

    And THAT is because they have ZERO intention to uphold the text to mean what it means. Had they done that an innocent man, Fincher, would now be free and we could buy, without permission from those who think they rule us, arms of the militia.

    Plus, F Holder. Start dropping hints to the local drug dealing types that some guns smuggled into the US would fetch a pretty penny. You want to see a wall go up fast enough to make your head spin start buying machine guns off juan down the street There will be money to be made, and if they think us criminals now, just wait. They can’t imagine.

  68. Linoge says:

    Now that I have the time for a more-substantial comment, if anyone was actually surprised by this, they obviously have not been paying attention for the past few months/years. Obama promised this before he was elected, and damn, he is actually going to fulfill that promise.

    Going to be a long four years…

  69. Sebastian said:

    “Did we start a civil war when Bush started locking people up in military prisons without trial or recourse to the courts? No, that was fought in the courts, and won.”

    Oh really? We “won”?

    Do you mean the Hamdi decision, where the majority on the Court ruled that there is nothing that prevents this country from declaring a US citizen an enemy combatant, throwing them into a military brig without indictment, and even trying them by military tribunal?

    Under Hamdi, such citizens STILL don’t get a trial – not a jury trial. Just whatever the Court wants to cook up, and the majority specifically said that a military tribunal could suffice.

    Is that what you mean by that issue being fought in the courts and “won”?

    Or do you mean the Padilla decision in the Fourth Circuit, which was even worse, since it entirely agreed with the Bush Admin assertion that Padilla (a US citizen) “captured” in the US could be held without indictment, without charges, and without a jury trial. That is still a good precedent, since the Bush Admin ducked review at the Supreme Court.

    The protection of the Bill of Rights can now be stripped from any American citizen upon the mere say-so of the President.

    Are those your definitions of “victory”? Gee, you sound just like the NRA.

    Gonna call for strict enforcement and application of the Military Commissions Act, including its definition of “unlawful combatant” which also applies to citizens?

    Gonna help draft the “citizen combatant military detention and trial act of 2009”?

    Sebastian, you really just don’t know what you are talking about on this issue.

    Stewart Rhodes

  70. Sebastian says:

    Stewart, I think it’s you who doesn’t know what they are talking about. Go read Hamdi. Yes, go read the entire decision. Go reread the Padilla case too. Once you do that, then come back and we can have a discussion. Because pretty clearly you did not read the opinion in either case.

  71. Sebastian:

    “Stewart, I think it’s you who doesn’t know what they are talking about.”

    Well then, please enlighten me. What did you mean by victory?

    Do you consider the Hamdi decision a victory? If so, why?

  72. Sebastian says:

    The Hamdi decision held that US citizens could not be held indefinitely without due process. It allowed US citizens who were detained to seek to challenge their detention through US courts. That was contrary to the Bush Administration’s position that it had plenary authority to declare any US citizens an unlawful combatant and imprison them without access to the courts.

  73. Sebastian said:

    “The Hamdi decision held that US citizens could not be held indefinitely without due process. It allowed US citizens who were detained to seek to challenge their detention through US courts. That was contrary to the Bush Administration’s position that it had plenary authority to declare any US citizens an unlawful combatant and imprison them without access to the courts.”

    Yes, Bush did not get all he wanted, but as Scalia said in his dissent, all the Court really defended was its own turf, ensuring that it would play some role in whatever new system of “due process” it created, but that certainly would not include the right to an indictment or the right to a jury trial that the Bill of Rights demands.

    And, as I said, the majority held that an American citizen could be held as an enemy combatant and a military tribunal could be sufficient “due process.”

    The President can still declare any citizen to be an enemy combatant, and when the courts review that detention they do not ask if there has been a criminal indictment. None is required. So, if you are so held, you are already removed from the criminal law paradigm, and now you will be dealt with in a new citizen military detainee paradigm – that is what the Court accepted as being just fine, on the say so of the President alone, and then the court will review that detention within this new paradigm. And it will give the government the benefit of the doubt.

    So, for that review of the designation, you get no criminal charges, no grand jury, no indictment, and no jury trial. And that review can be carried out by a military tribunal.

    And then if the designation is affirmed after review, you can then be tried by military tribunal, just as if you were a foreign enemy captured on a battlefield.

    I suppose that is only a “victory” if you just don’t care about those parts of the Bill of Rights.

    Look, I understand why you think it was a victory. The left media spun the Hamdi decision as some sort of victory, shouting from the rooftops that it was a win for liberty, simply because they wanted to have a role for the courts (because the left loves judges as the supposed “embodiment of public reason”), and they wanted some separations of powers.

    But that decision was hardly a victory for the Bill of Rights or liberty.

    Read Scalia’s dissent. While Scalia screwed the pooch in Heller, with all his wishy washy qualifications of the Second Amendment, Scalia was spot on in Hamdi. Under the Constitution no citizen can be tried by military tribunal for making war against the US. That is what the Treason Clause is for. A trial for treason, in a jury trial, in a civilian court, is what is required.

    And, as Scalia noted, no suspension of habeas corpus had been enacted by Congress, so detention without trial was also unconstitutional.

    As Scalia said, the majority was playing “Mr. Fixit” trying to make it all come out just right.

    Splitting the baby.

    If you don’t think I know what I am talking about then you must also think Scalia doesn’t know what he is talking about.

    Go read his dissent. Please. Then see if you don’t change your mind;

    Hamdi was a disaster even worse than Heller – far worse.

    Stewart Rhodes

  74. DinkyDau Billy says:

    http://lajuntablog.blogspot.com/2009/03/obama-is-great-for-gun-sales.html

    I post the link above because the commentary below does not include the links:

    From a gun show in Bloomington, IL, we receive news that gun and ammunition sales are through the roof.

    This is one of those annual gun shows. In the past, attendance has been variable, sometimes even weak.

    Our correspondent went there yesterday and stood in line five minutes just to get in. The show was packed with people eager to purchase guns and ammo, and we aren’t talking about the gun magazine.

    Gun prices were reportedly high, and it didn’t matter what make, model, caliber, or design was being offered. Any gun would do. The most inflated, price-wise, and the most difficult to find, were those that were ‘black and plastic’. The cheapest plain-Jane AR-15, not a Colt or Bushmaster, was $1400. This is at least double last year’s price for the same firearm. There were no Colts or Bushmasters to be had. Bushmaster reportedly has a 100,000 gun backlog.

    Ammunition was available but very pricey. 7.62 x 39 ammo was $440 for 1260 rounds of imported military surplus packed in tins. While ammo was available, it was in lesser quantities than a year ago. Prices were double, maybe more.

    It was all selling.

    Dealers were wishing they had the guns they had sold just six months ago, as they could now get prices double or even triple what they got back then. One fellow asked a dealer if he could get him “a cheap AK”. The dealer replied, “I can’t even get you an expensive AK.”

    Last weekend there was the gun show in New Berlin, Il. In years past, it had a good gun show, but over the last few years it had really gone downhill. A lot of junk, trashy knives and fake swords, trinkets and doodads…like a lot of gun shows around here. But last weekend it too was packed, so full you could hardly get down the aisles. Over in Princeton, Il, and Peoria, Il before that, it was more of the same. One dealer reported that if he had a gun or ammo on his table, it was going to sell.

    A quote:

    I guess The Messiah’s economic stimulus package really is working. He just needs to send more money to Winchester, Federal, Remington, Speer, Bushmaster, Colt, RRA, S&W, etc so they ramp up production, get people spending their money, and get this economy turned around.

    Another dealer said he hasn’t seen sales this good since Clinton was in office.

    And here’s the thing:

    “One dealer said that had he known Obama would have been so good for gun sales even he would have voted for Obama.”

    Would Obama appreciate being such a force of improvement in the free market? It would appear that Obamanomics are indeed having a positive effect.

    Last week Attorney General Eric Holder gave his ‘gun-grabbing’ speech, wherein he said we have to reinstitute the so-called “assault weapons ban”. What is interesting is what he and apparently the Obama administration see as the necessity for that action.

    It’s to protect the Mexican government.

    They can’t claim that these firearms are being used in crimes against American citizens. Holder’s own FBI statistics don’t support that they are. And murders nationwide are down, from a peak in the nineties during the Clinton era…and they have dropped despite the sunsetting of the Clinton ban. That statement is supported by Holder’s own FBI statistics. I wonder if Holder is one of those characters like over in the Congressional Circus or the White House, who is not confused by fact. See this interesting article for more on that. They really can’t claim that these firearms are being used against the Mexican government, since the stuff the Mexicans are dealing with are selective fire military weapons, not semi-auto stuff for the civilian market. But like everything else, the Obamamanians don’t want you confused with fact, and the weapon shown in the preceding linked article is simply not available to the public here in the US. That is a machine gun, and purchase of that item is very sharply restricted or even outright banned. Tom, Dick, and Harriet simply cannot purchase those guns.

    From Holder’s speech:

    Holder said that putting the ban back in place would not only be a positive move by the United States, it would help cut down on the flow of guns going across the border into Mexico, which is struggling with heavy violence among drug cartels along the border.

    So now it’s our fault that Mexicans are buying high end weapons. You don’t suppose it might be due to the fact that the Mexican government is so corrupt that even Chicago politicians are embarrassed by it? You don’t suppose it is due to the fact that the Mexican government cannot control crime within Mexico, and cannot protect its own citizens from violent criminals?

    Does Holder really think that an ‘assault weapons ban’ in this country is going to solve Mexican criminal violence, and by extension, win the drug war we have been so futilely fighting for so many years?

    And do Holder and Obama really think that all these people buying all these guns here at home are really going to give them up because the Democrats say so?

    Really?

  75. Dick G says:

    It’s time to remember that the 2nd Amendment is to allow the citizens (which are the militia) to protect the United States of America from enemies both foreign AND domestic. We will of course always use the courts and argument first but the rifle must always be present. If we ever allow our rights for self defense and defense of our country to be stripped I guarantee that you, your children or their children will be walked to a ditch and disposed of like trash.

    And for Mexico, let them control their own borders – it’s long overdue.

  76. Arnie says:

    To Sebastion: I concede your point that the 2nd Amendment protects a man’s right to keep and bear a rifle that is normally used for hunting (such as your Rem. 700). But the reason the 2nd Amendment protects such possession is so that its owner can use it as a militiaman to defend his, or his State’s, liberty against national tyranny, just as many of our forefathers used their hunting muskets to secure their States’ liberty from Parliament’s tyranny. The distinction I failed to make clear is that although the 2nd Amendment protects hunting, sporting, and self-defense ARMS (for use in their potential militia role), it does not protect a right to use them for hunting, sport-shooting or SELF-defense (Heller notwithstanding). I mean those purposes just are not in the amendment. They are, however, in the common law, and as such are protected by both the 9th and 10th Articles of our Bill of Rights. I have to agree with Stewart, that Heller may have been a Pyrric victory in that our success of getting recognition of an INDIVIDUAL right came at the unacceptable loss of “Miller’s” well-researched ruling that the arms we have an uninfringeable right to keep and bear are clearly military combat arms “common to the soldier of today,” not to mention Scalia’s emasculating concession to allow “reasonable regulation” of a right which the Amendment clearly says canNOT be regulated (“shall not be infringed”). I urge you not to give undue obeisance to Supreme Court rulings even if they are written by usually faithful conservatives. Court opinions can be just as unconstitutional as acts of Congress and actions of the President. In too many areas, Heller was. You and I both know what the 2nd Amendment says, means, and protects, and it is not shooting ducks, clay pigeons, or criminal intruders (again, covered by the 9th); rather it secures my right to join with you and thousands of our felow patriots to kill any and all federal tyrants who would dare to destroy our rights or the soveriegn authority of our State(s). Whether we use hunting rifles or 50-caliber machine guns is up to us (or perhaps our State, depending on your State’s Constitution – unless of course you believe the 14th Amendment was properly ratified IAW Article V – a contoversy for another time). Anyway, thank you for your website, for the stimulating discussion, and especially for your love of liberty! – Arnie

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Instapundit » Blog Archive » WELL, THAT DIDN’T TAKE LONG: Holder calls for new assault-weapons ban. That, you see, will put an … - [...] THAT DIDN’T TAKE LONG: Holder calls for new assault-weapons ban. That, you see, will put an end to the…
  2. TriggerFinger - Obama's Attorney General calls for new assault weapons ban... Either way, the best response is to communicate back to…
  3. Holder tips hand on semi-auto ban.... - IH8MUD Forums - [...] on semi-auto ban.... This ought to turn the buying spree from panic to a…
  4. Mexico: The Long Arm of the Lawless « The Rhetorican - [...] RELATED (Via Instapundit): Oh, and what is your role in all this?  Endure more gun control!  Eric Holder wants…
  5. illspirit.com - Let me get this straight... There’s a war going on south of the border involving vast, criminal organizations who…
  6. Alphecca » AG Calls for New AWB - [...] And, for the lamest of reasons: Because Mexico can’t control it’s criminals. Sebastian has the details. [...]
  7. SayUncle » Holder Calls for new Assault Weapons Ban - [...] SIH: At a press conference announcing the arrests, Holder also suggested that re-instituting a U.S. ban on the sale…
  8. Snowflakes in Hell » Blog Archive » Does Obama Have the Votes? - [...] sure that Obama has the votes in the Senate to pass an assault weapons ban.  I mostly agree with…
  9. And so it begins « Stuff From Hsoi - [...] momentum by claiming it’s for the good of stoping drugs and violence in Mexico. Read about it here, and…
  10. Random Nuclear Strikes » The Soundboard: My Week Edition - [...] log on last night and find that Obama is sending out AG Holder to call for a new and…
  11. Obama Drop the Bomb, Seeks “Assault Weapons” Ban Renewal « The Iron Whirlygig - [...] quote Sebastian: So we are going to lose our gun rights because our government can’t secure its borders, and…
  12. US Attorney General Eric Holder Suggests New Assault Weapon Ban - PAFOA Blog - [...] [H/T: Snowflakes In Hell] [...]
  13. Found: One Troll » Blog Archive » Remember: They don’t want to take your guns - [...] that they do. So pretty much everyone in the gun blogosphere is talking about Eric Holder’s statement today: [...]
  14. We all start sometime - 036 - [...] Holder’s an anti-gun weasel, duh [...]
top