Obama's pick: Eric Holder for Attorney General. Effect on gun rights?


PDA






MatthewVanitas
November 18, 2008, 06:08 PM
As I understand it, Obama's pick of Attorney General will have a sizable impact on gun policy under his administration. What does THR think of his pick of Eric Holder?

What other political posts are THR members watching carefully, in terms of gun rights?

If you enjoyed reading about "Obama's pick: Eric Holder for Attorney General. Effect on gun rights?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
almostfree
November 18, 2008, 06:25 PM
He wrote this: http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/1999/June/257dag.htm


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
DAG
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 16, 1999
(202) 616-2777
WWW.USDOJ.GOV
TDD (202) 514-1888

STATEMENT BY DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC H. HOLDER, JR.

WASHINGTON, DC -- Deputy Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr. today held a press conference to urge Members of Congress to adopt reasonable gun legislation. He issued the following statement.

"Good Afternoon. We are here today because the House of Representatives has begun debate on legislation that can make a critical difference to law enforcement, and to the safety of all Americans.

"Today Individual Members of Congress have a clear-cut choice to make. Either they can cave in to the narrow, special interests that value the cold, hard steel of guns more than the lives of children, neighbors and police officers, or they can fulfill the mandate of the broad majority of the American public by supporting a reasonable, common sense bill that would make all of us safer from armed criminals. The choice for each House Member is just that stark.

"As most of you know, I have served as a judge, as the chief prosecutor for the District of Columbia, and for the past two years as the Deputy Attorney General of the United States. I know the harm that guns can do - to individuals, to families, and to communities. My concern about easy access to guns in our society is built on my professional experience and the tragedies I have encountered in my work day life. But even more important, I am a father, and I want to be sure that we here in Washington do everything we can -- everything in our power -- to make our communities, our schools and our nation a safer place for our kids.

"Five years ago, Congress came together in a bipartisan way and passed one of the most important gun control measures ever -- the Brady bill. Yesterday, the President announced that since this law went into effect, more than 400,000 criminals and others who are not legally eligible to have guns, have been stopped from buying guns.

"Four hundred thousand. That's a lot of guns. Particularly if those guns were in the hands of fugitives or felons.

"But while the Brady law has done a lot to make this country safer, the law has a dangerous loophole that criminals and others who cannot legally buy guns at a licenced gun shop exploit. While everyone who buys a gun through a licenced dealer must undergo a background check to determine if they are eligible to buy a gun, the current law allows unlicenced sellers at gun shows to sell to anyone -- with no questions asked.

"It's not hard to see what kind of message that sends to criminals.

"But it is hard for me to believe that any reasonable person -- including those who serve in Congress -- could oppose taking the simple step necessary to close that gap.

"Last month the Senate passed a bill that does close the loophole. And this week the House has an opportunity to join them in this very logical decision.

"This should be an easy decision. But for many Members it will not be, because of the pressure they are under from the NRA. We must urge Congress to resist the gun lobby's pressure to vote for the sham gun control being pressed on the House.

"This bill does nothing to plug the gaping loophole in the Brady law. In fact, it actually creates new loopholes and weakens the protections currently in place. Let me give you a couple of examples of what's wrong with it:

"The bill would narrow the definition of gun show to exclude many events where large numbers of guns are sold, such as flea markets.

"Even worse -- for the events that it does cover, the bill weakens the current law by cutting down the amount of time law enforcement has to complete pre-sale background checks, from 3 working days to 72 hours.

"Let me be clear about what this means.

"For approximately 73 percent of gun buyers, a background check is completed and they are allowed to buy their gun within minutes, and 95 percent of all buyers have had their check completed within two hours.

"But for the tiny percentage of buyers, for whom the Instant Check System receives a "hold" message, more time is needed. This is because court records are needed to provide additional information -- and those court records sometimes can take days to access. They certainly cannot be accessed on weekends when most shows take place. And we know that those purchasers who do not receive a quick go-ahead are more likely to turn out to be prohibited purchasers. In fact, data from the FBI's national instant check system shows that Saturday gun buyers whose check cannot be completed in 24 hours are twenty times more likely to be prohibited people than the average gun buyer.

"The FBI has also estimated the impact a 72-hour limit would have had if it had been in place over the last 6 months, and the results are chilling. If Law Enforcement had had 72 hours instead of three working days, more than 9,000 felons and other prohibited purchasers would have gotten guns.

"Another recently offered amendment is even worse. It cuts the time to 24 hours, which translates to 17,000 prohibited purchasers who would not have been stopped from buying deadly weapons in the last six months.

"And let me tell you who just a few of these people were: Among those stopped were a convicted murderer in Texas; a rapist in Wisconsin; a convicted child molester, and a person currently under indictment for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.

"Had a 24-hour limit been in place, each one of these dangerous criminals would have slipped through the system and would have been sold a gun.

"I don't know about you, but I sure wouldn't want to have to tell the parent of a child lost to gun violence that the purchaser of the gun used in the crime could have been stopped from buying the gun -- if only law enforcement had had another day to pull their record -- or, if only the dealer at the gun show had been required to run a background check.

"It's these parents that Congress should think about while considering the legislation before them.

"Over the past two months we have heard from the American people that they want those of us in Washington to lead -- and to pass real measures that protect our communities, and that protect our kids.

"We saw this in the bi-partisan support the Senate received for the common sense measures it passed last month.

"The House now has the option to consider an equally sensible bill. Representatives McCarthy, Roukema and Blagojevich have offered a bi-partisan amendment that is based upon the Senate-passed gun show measures, but has been modified specifically to address concerns expressed by some who thought the Senate provisions went too far.

"It closes the gun show loophole but does nothing that would present any obstacle to law-abiding citizens seeking to purchase guns at a gun show or anywhere else.

"This is not about politics -- partisan or otherwise. And this should not be about narrow, misguided special interests. This is about public safety and our children. I call upon those Members in the House to talk to the families that have been ripped apart by violence and to reflect on the opportunity they now have to stop other families from experiencing similar tragedies."

and he said this in a News Hour with Jim Lehrer interview in 1999 located here: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/congress/jan-june99/guncontrol_5-27.html

ERIC HOLDER: A mandatory 72-hour waiting period for all happen-gun purchases will help stop heat-of-the moment killings and a proposed increase in the minimum age for handgun possession from 18 to 21 will get hand guns out of the hands of the most crime-prone age group.

Bubba613
November 18, 2008, 06:31 PM
I would have been shocked if Obama asked Ashcroft to come back as AG. What did anyone expect?

Realistically there isn't much an AG is going to do without having some political will behind it.

cassandrasdaddy
November 18, 2008, 06:32 PM
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_n15_v13/ai_19340518/pg_1?tag=artBody;col1

As U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, Eric Holder has been a frontline soldier in the city's war on drugs. Now, as deputy attorney general-designate, he reveals his strategy for dealing with the scourge of drugs.

To Eric Holder, the first black to lead the country's largest US. attorney's of office, marijuana is not just a gate way drug, it is an avenue that leads to violent crime and death. This 21-year resident of D.C. has walked the streets of Northwest and Northeast Washington investigating crack houses and witnessing the blank eyes and empty faces that linger on city street corners. Holder is convinced that selling marijuana in drug-plagued D.C. should be a felony, not simply a misdemeanor as current law dictates. He has drafted legislation introduced to the city council to change the law and has worked to institute mandatory minimum sentences for convicted drug dealers.


not what you might expect

MatthewVanitas
November 18, 2008, 06:45 PM
Well, at least the fact that he's a Drug Warrior means that there will be plenty of people on the left displeased with the pick.

I don't partake, myself, but given that Prohibition didn't work for alcohol, I'm most displeased about my tax dollars being used for Prohibition II.

HorseSoldier
November 18, 2008, 07:10 PM
ERIC HOLDER: A mandatory 72-hour waiting period for all happen-gun purchases will help stop heat-of-the moment killings and a proposed increase in the minimum age for handgun possession from 18 to 21 will get hand guns out of the hands of the most crime-prone age group.

I wonder if the new Attorney General will fund 72 hour police protection for any and every battered spouse and other people who have reason to fear for their lives and safety while waiting to purchase a firearm for personal protection.

ArmedBear
November 18, 2008, 07:38 PM
Holder helped Reno spin Waco, was instrumental in the corrupt Clinton pardons, and the above.

A new kind of politics, my ass.

BTW, those who didn't like Bush and the GOP Congress, are you starting to see that they weren't ALL bad, yet? Or will it take a few more weeks?

Cyborg
November 18, 2008, 07:50 PM
I am new to the forum but I cannot understand why anyone would be surprised at Barama choosing such a man for AG. The left is genuinely afraid of the populace having the wherewithal to defend themselves against an overreaching central government. These are without (or virtually without) exception elitists who are absolutely certain they know what is best for everyone. Clarence Darrow wrote:The world is made up for the most part of morons and natural tyrants, sure of themselves, strong in their own opinions, never doubting anything.

I do not believe these are evil people - at least not in the sense of a Hitler, a Pol Pot, or a Stalin. I have no doubt that Barama sincerely BELIEVES his vision is best. Doubtless there are those in his entourage who have less lofty motives but I refuse to attribute base motives to the left merely because they disagree with me and I find their worldview completely disconnected from the reality which I percieve. I have no problem ascribing to them the very best of intentions. Of course we all recall exactly what is paved with good intentions. As Aldus Huxley said :
Hell isn't merely paved with good intentions, it is walled and roofed with them.

But even if their motives are pure the result may well be the end of the Republic as we know it. Perhaps C.S. Lewis said it best:
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

Bubba613
November 18, 2008, 07:52 PM
I dunno. I think it will backlash. If Obama appoints ex-Clintonistas then he undermines his message of change. If he goes outside established names then he reinforces his own inexperience. It's a win-win for the rest of us.

How much affect does the AG have on this stuff anyway? Ashcroft wrote a memo saying the 2A was an individual right. But I don't recall it having much positive effect after that.

Justin
November 18, 2008, 07:54 PM
A multiple prohibitionist and a true believer to boot.

Marx, save me from your followers...

Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
November 18, 2008, 08:00 PM
Just no surprise at all that the most anti-gun / anti-civil-rights POTUS in US History would choose a CCRV (certified civil rights violator) as AG. Disappointing, but not surprising.

Patriot Henry
November 18, 2008, 08:11 PM
Eric Holder was the lawyer for the nice banana folks at Chiquita who were caught funding terrorism: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/01/AR2007080102601.html

"Fruit fascism" as I recently termed it has a long and terrible presence in America's foreign policy. Chiquita used to be called United Fruit and it caused a great many terrible things to happen to innocent people.

Everyone has the right to a lawyer, even corporate executives who fund terrorism. Being such a person's lawyer doesn't necessarily make one a bad person but this guy seems like a real representative of the worst government lawyer stereotype.

Holder was also appointed Acting Attorney General under Bush before Ashcroft was put into power. Bipartisan agent of the leviathan. Some sort of "change" appointing this guy AG.

almostfree
November 18, 2008, 08:19 PM
"Fruit fascism" as I recently termed it has a long and terrible presence in America's foreign policy. Chiquita used to be called United Fruit and it caused a great many terrible things to happen to innocent people.

Sorry to change the subject, but I had a professor that was a foreign exchange student in Guatemala during the CIA/United Fruit squashing of the revolution there. I think he suffered PTSD from what he saw during that time.

Cyborg
November 18, 2008, 08:31 PM
Cyborg,I love your handle and your aptly done Doomsday first post.
Welcome to THR!
Thank you, Mr. $. I use that handle because I AM in fact a cyborg. Between the steel that holds my right foot attached to my body and the titanium steel bracket that held my head onto my body until my neck healed and the microcomputer that tells my heart to beat I am literally a cyborg.

I don't see doomsday. Just a possibility of the end of the world as we know it.

The AG can have a significant effect, Bubba. IIRC the FBI is part of the DOJ of which the AG is head. The AG would be expected to lobby and testify before congress to get anti-2A legislation. If Barama's lapdog congress passes such legislation, the AG can encourage or discourage enforcement. The AG can also go on the lapdog media to shill the legislation. All in all the AG could play a very significant role in the coming conflict.

Guy B. Meredith
November 18, 2008, 09:20 PM
"Well, at least the fact that he's a Drug Warrior means that there will be plenty of people on the left displeased with the pick.

Yeah. I nearly drove off the road when I dialed across Pacifica Radio KPFA in Berkeley and heard them ragging on Obama for his Clintonista picks. That was regarding the transition team. With Holder and others adding to the pile I'll have to tune back in for some real entertainment listening to the Pacifica crowd rail. :evil:

Just Jim
November 18, 2008, 09:37 PM
So he was a member of Janet Reno's gas em and burn em to get their guns bunch. I wonder how many buyers of EBR realized it would come to this??

This is gonna be real interesting. Last time they went to work they stirred up the loonies and got Oaklahoma City bombed. God help us all if they start crap when the economy sucks and people ain't got anything to lose.

jj

paintballdude902
November 18, 2008, 09:53 PM
this wouldnt effect me much but i still dont support it

unless they right in that all persons must complete a background check to buy a gun since nc allows face to face sale


this law will just make the black market more profitable for the sale of stolen and otherwise illegal guns

i dont understand what is so hard to understand that criminals wont be detured by a background check they will so go to the local piece of crap selling out of his truck of where ever they sell them from

and just for teh record pot smokin hippies are some of the most relaxed people i have ever met and really just dont care what a law says since they already have no faith in our govt

22-rimfire
November 18, 2008, 11:10 PM
I think I'll wait until he says something in 2008 or 2009 before I get too excited. There are a lot of gun grabbers in Congress. I want to wait and see what we'll be fighting first.

Onmilo
November 18, 2008, 11:24 PM
I warned everybody not to trust ANYTHING coming out of Chicago and calling itself a politician.
Few chose to listen.

Zoogster
November 18, 2008, 11:26 PM
How much affect does the AG have on this stuff anyway? Ashcroft wrote a memo saying the 2A was an individual right. But I don't recall it having much positive effect after that.
The AG dictates the type of actions that will be acceptable and even encouraged by individuals in the ATF, FBI, Homeland Security, etc

If the AG believes guns really are a serious problem, then they can essentialy take the gloves off such agency's when they tackle those type of "problems".
That has a huge impact, and greatly influences the type of actions that will be taken by those agencies.

They are the lead LEO in the nation, and set the tone for Federal LEO, which over time effects the tone of State LEO as well.

They also have some other direct powers, like declaring what shotguns are sporting, and which are not.
Most recent AWB re-authorization bills ( a name which leads people to think they are the same, but a few sentences drasticly change things for the worse from the previous AWB) have an Attorney General clause that allows them to name all firearms that are prohibited for civilians.
Giving them direct and constant powers over what citizens may and may not have.

The AG is one of the most significant positions of the presidency.
Also consider that Obama seems to be quite willing to cede to the experience of the people he has in his cabinet. So the nation is likely to be run more by those he hires than himself. He will be more or less the frontman and media figure, but those he hires the actual decision makers. They will also be largely responsible for whispering in Obama's ear on what bills need to be introduced. An AG that does not believe in the Right to Keep and Bear Arms should be a major concern.

ArmedBear
November 18, 2008, 11:33 PM
I have no doubt that Barama sincerely BELIEVES his vision is best.

Why do you think that Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot did not?

I don't know anything about the site it's on, but this is an interesting read: http://www.faithfreedom.org/obama.html

jeepmor
November 19, 2008, 12:17 AM
I warned everybody not to trust ANYTHING coming out of Chicago and calling itself a politician.

Chicago is the most corrupt city in the nation, I guess the nation is about to see just what that entails at a national level.

mordechaianiliewicz
November 19, 2008, 12:24 AM
This is just more proof of what I've been saying about Mr. Obama. He is not only not our friend. He is our enemy.

This guy literally aided the execution of 80 people by the government.

He aided getting Marc Rich off from a crime because of a back end deal to contribute to Clinton.

This guy is also a "drug warrior" which really is code for "Anti- Bill of Rights Warrior".

Yet another decision from Obama that tells me he was a bad decision from all those folks who wanted "change."

PS-Do not infer I am saying McCain was any better a choice.

ArmedBear
November 19, 2008, 12:27 AM
mordechai-

Haven't seen you around here lately. Good to see your post; you're right on as usual.

The idiots at Reason who figured that Obama would be an improvement in the civil liberties arena were so easily duped. What the?

mordechaianiliewicz
November 19, 2008, 12:40 AM
Thanks, ArmedBear, I was simply waiting to make a triumphant return.... yeah

As for Reason, well, they are desperate. Right now, both libertarians within the Republican Party, and the Paleocons know they are gasping on fumes. The neocon/religious right section doesn't know that yet, but they are as well.

Reason saw the civil liberties attacks of the Bush Administration, which to a small "l" libertarian were horrifying, and figured, because of Obama's rhetoric, there would be a change. I hoped for it, but I knew better.

Truth be known, no one in Washington who has any real power is looking out for the BoR. And, with Obama, guns (which were simply not really a concern for the Bush Administration) now are also to be targetted along with the rest of the BoR.

Basically, the Democrats have one set of enemies, the Republicans another. Neither seems to really care that much about the Constitution when they see a chance to hobble their enemies.

With the Republicans, they wanted to attack certain groups they felt might be "terrorists" in yet another undeclared war. They also wanted to deny freedom of assembly to people that opposed said war, and advocate certain religious beliefs, and also control certain relgious ideas, therby cutting out those without faith (faith based initiative).

Now the Democrats will attack a mostly Conservative talk radio with the fairness doctrine, and probably go back to burning religious weirdos to death because they choose to be armed. They will also assault the rights of all gun owners with another assault weapons ban. Who knows where else they will go with this?

The problem is, neither side asks, "Is what we are doing right?"

jackdanson
November 19, 2008, 02:41 AM
Thanks, ArmedBear, I was simply waiting to make a triumphant return.... yeah

wow, whole post, though political (and therefore frowned upon here) was well thought out and insanely accurate. I agree with everything you said. Glad to see a fellow missourian speaking what I believe, although unfortunately we are in the minority.

mordechaianiliewicz
November 19, 2008, 10:45 AM
Thankyou, Mr. Danson.

#shooter
November 19, 2008, 10:56 AM
Hmmm... what do I think of him?

:barf::barf::barf::barf::barf::barf::barf::barf::barf:

Yup, that pretty much sums it up.

Zangetsu
November 19, 2008, 10:48 PM
The problem is, neither side asks, "Is what we are doing right?"

You sir, are a wise man. I absolutely LOVE how these clowns flat out ignore the piles of studies and mountains of evidence that show that their beloved AWB had no real effect on anything that it was supposed to do, unless it was supposed to chip away our individual rights, but thinking like that is paranoid, or so I'm told :banghead: Him and those in his camp say there's no reason to not pass legislation limiting the 2nd amendment if it means saving a single innocent life, despite the fact that there's no evidence that those laws have or can do that, or the fact that legislation like that can and has cost innocent civilians their lives because they could not legally posses what they needed to defend themselves. Finally, I often times see them add little footnotes, saying something like, "..oh, but if you happen to use a banned item in self defense, we won't prosecute you, so chill already..." while at the same time, continually voting down bills that guarantee that very right which should need no law to guarantee it; we have the right to defend ourselves, with lethal force if necessary. This is going to be a long 4 to 8 years...

7.62X25mm
November 19, 2008, 11:52 PM
McCarthy is about two steps beyond the pale in terms of reactionary/hysterical gun grabbers.

Obama's current "vetting procedure" for appointments asks if the applicant owns a gun. None of his business for one. A Constitutional Civil Liberty for two.

Sinixstar
November 20, 2008, 12:07 AM
how many more of these threads are we really going to have?

Megistopoda
November 20, 2008, 09:17 AM
Dear President-Elect Obama:

Congratulations on your election. I am writing regarding the choice of Eric Holder for Attorney General. As he would be the nation's top law enforcement officer, I am deeply concerned about Mr. Holder's lack of respect for second amendment rights.

During your campaign, you made it abundantly clear that you supported the second amendment, that you agreed with the Heller decision, and that you would protect American's fundamental right to bear arms.

However, Mr. Holder submitted an amicus brief to the supreme court, wherein he supported the sophisticated collective rights position (as did former Attorney General Reno). In effect, Mr. Holder's position renders the amendment a dead-letter, protecting no meaningful right whatsoever. He opposed the position of the supreme court majority ... a position you claim to support.

How do you reconcile your promises to respect and uphold the second amendment, while chosing an Attorney General who does not?

This is an important issue and I very much would like an explanation.

Sincerely,

MD_Willington
November 20, 2008, 09:31 AM
That letter sums it up pretty well, every gun board member needs to send it.

zoom6zoom
November 20, 2008, 11:35 AM
Yesterday, the President announced that since this law went into effect, more than 400,000 criminals and others who are not legally eligible to have guns, have been stopped from buying guns.
of whom almost none were actually prosecuted. So what was the point?

mbt2001
November 20, 2008, 12:01 PM
of whom almost none were actually prosecuted. So what was the point?

+1

I hear this crap coming out of Washington all the time... The NO FLY list has kept THOUSANDS of "terrorist related individuals off flights". People so dangerous that they were not arrested or prosecuted. It is crap. A lie and people are not saying enough is enough.

I don't remember the 30's, 40's, 50's, 60's, 70's and 80's being any different than today. The majority of crime is committed by repeat criminals that the system isn't punishing / rehabilitating or prosecuting...

Juna
November 20, 2008, 08:01 PM
He joined in on an amicus brief AGAINST Heller, if that tells you anything. He defended Castro, the guy who shot Reagan, etc. He is as bad a choice as Obama could have made.

So much for "change" with his 80-90% Clinton administration appointees. Why people fell for the lies of a politician during election season and gave one political party unilateral control over all 3 branches of gov't is beyond me!!! :fire::cuss::banghead:

MuleBrain
November 20, 2008, 08:03 PM
Communism, Fascism, Socialism and the American Left are all versions of the same general political philosophy and that they have for decades stood in direct opposition to the founding principals of our nation: individual liberty, free enterprise and limited government power.

Democracy is Two Wolves and a Lamb deciding what's for dinner. Liberty is a Well Armed Lamb Contesting the Vote."

Those without Power cannot defend Freedom.

Yellowfin
November 20, 2008, 08:05 PM
Time to Bork the hell out of him. The donkeys got a couple AG's tossed from the Bush years, rode Gingrich out of town, and many others. We need to step up and kick every anti gun toad like this guy out ASAP.

mordechaianiliewicz
November 21, 2008, 01:42 AM
Good luck on Borking this guy. The Democrats hold all the cards except the Judicial Department.

This is why I've been saying, the best configuration for the growth of government, and protection of (if not the reduction of) gun laws is, a 5-4 Conservative Court, a Conservative Republican House and Moderate Republican Senate (in terms of control), and a moderate to slightly liberal President.

Government seems to grow least, and both sides will beat the crap out of each other instead of us.... I never thought I'd say this, but I long for the days of Clinton now. Not because I loved Clinton, but because I loved the government being relatively locked up once the "Republican Revolution" rolled into town.

If you enjoyed reading about "Obama's pick: Eric Holder for Attorney General. Effect on gun rights?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!