Holder's new views on the 2A


January 16, 2009, 09:57 AM
This came out in his conformation hearings, as reported by CNN.

WASHINGTON (CNN) Attorney General-designate Eric Holder conceded during his confirmation hearing Thursday that the government's options for regulating the possession of firearms have been narrowed in the wake of the Supreme Court's 2008 ruling that the Second Amendment ensures an individual right to bear arms.

"Reasonable restrictions are still possible," Holder said, including measures such as a ban on the sale of what are called "cop-killer" bullets.

But, he granted, "we're living in a different world" since the high court's 5-4 ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller.

Holder said that he previously viewed the Second Amendment as a "collective right" to bear arms, not an individual right.

The Heller ruling, Holder said, was a "very significant opinion."

I hope this is not more smoke and mirrors.

If you enjoyed reading about "Holder's new views on the 2A" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
January 16, 2009, 10:08 AM
Doesn't say his views have changed, just that he thinks Heller was important.

We'll see over time I guess.

January 16, 2009, 10:25 AM
It takes a lot to change a man's core beliefes, and I believe he will act on his to the extent possible within the law amd with some possible interpretation/bending.

January 16, 2009, 10:46 AM
Holder said that he previously viewed the Second Amendment as a "collective right" to bear arms, not an individual right.

Texas Rifleman "Previously viewed" would at first glance indicate that your views had changed.

I am not defending Holder, just reporting wait he said.

He is a scumbag that will screw us if he can.

January 16, 2009, 10:52 AM
Texas Rifleman "Previously viewed" would at first glance indicate that your views had changed.

I'm afraid I can't read that much good news into it :)

I hope he has changed his mind certainly but, like most of these guys, I worry he will go back to the

"OK it's an individual right but in the opinion section Scalia said we could restrict it"

From Volokh

At the oral argument before the Fifth Circuit in United States v. Emerson, the Assistant U.S. Attorney [i.e. Holder] told the panel that the Second Amendment was no barrier to gun confiscation, not even of the confiscation of guns from on-duty National Guardsmen. As Deputy Attorney General, Holder was a strong supporter of restrictive gun control. He advocated federal licensing of handgun owners, a three day waiting period on handgun sales, rationing handgun sales to no more than one per month, banning possession of handguns and so-called “assault weapons” (cosmetically incorrect guns) by anyone under age of 21, a gun show restriction bill that would have given the federal government the power to shut down all gun shows, national gun registration, and mandatory prison sentences for trivial offenses

I guess I'm just not ready to believe that he's "seen the light".


January 16, 2009, 10:55 AM
Like I said I'm not for Holder, just wanted to post the news bit.

January 16, 2009, 10:57 AM
Like I said I'm not for Holden, just wanted to post the news bit.

Oh I understand, I read his transcript and yes it's good that he will at least admit that Heller exists, there are lots of them that still want to pretend it never happened or it somehow doesn't matter :)

I'm not arguing with you :)

This guy scares me, that's all.

January 16, 2009, 10:59 AM
It's those words "reasonable restrictions" that scare me.


Duke of Doubt
January 16, 2009, 11:43 AM
At least he acknowledges its significance, and doesn't brush it off as a narrow, aberrant opinion. That probably comes from BO.

We don't really know what Holder's personal opinion is. Remember, back in the day he was given his marching orders from the Clintons and from Janet Rhino, none of whom brooked any dissent, on penalty of anything from being canned to being found partly disassembled at Fort Marcy Park.

January 16, 2009, 11:44 AM
I still don't trust the sierra oscar bravo. He's a politician and you know the old saw: How do you know a politician is lying? His lips are moving.
At least the Rebublicans on the Judiciary Committee did what I asked mine and Spector to do - make him articulate his beliefs publicly - AND under oath.

When I hear on the news that a leopard one day woke up patterned like a oscelot, I'll consider trusting him. Till then november foxtrot whiskey.


January 16, 2009, 11:57 AM
Holder is the one who told the District Judges in the Emerson case that the Federal gov. could ban their shotguns in the closet at home. The Judges told Holder between them they owned enough firearms to take over a South Americian Country. I dislike him an Obama very, very much. Watch out is will come down the pike.

January 16, 2009, 12:24 PM
HOLDER, don't want to knitpick but come on, the name is Eric Holder

January 16, 2009, 12:34 PM
Well I've clean up what I could. It's Friday going on Saturday.

January 16, 2009, 12:39 PM
Cop Killer bullets :rolleyes:

Any "bullet" can be used to kill... these talking head types sure are a bunch of idiots!

Same as "Bullet Proof Vests"

No such beast exists...

With enough velocity anything can go through another thing... ;)

January 16, 2009, 12:46 PM
on penalty of anything from being canned to being found partly disassembled at Fort Marcy Park.
But But I thought Vince Foster committed suicide?:confused: I mean that's what the media reported. Were they wrong? :eek: Did those guys report something FACT-U-AL-LY IN-COR-RECT? :what:

Say it ain't so!!!:uhoh:


<removes tongue from cheek>
Later guys.


January 16, 2009, 12:48 PM
Can someone explain to me what the hell a cop killer bullet is? Is he talking about hollowpoints that cant pierce any armor or FMJ's that allow for cheap practice?

That being said, I think this is the first time since before election day i've felt anything resembling "hope" for the direction of the federal government.

January 16, 2009, 12:50 PM
Holder's statements DO NOT IN ANYWAY represent a view change regarding the 2A and RKBA. In fact, quite contrary they establish he still wants to highly regulate guns, but concedes that Heller limits his ability to do so. Basically he is saying that he will push for every regulation that is possible under the Heller ruling... what those are, I don't know. Don't be fooled.

January 16, 2009, 01:15 PM
To believe that this man will respect the Heller decision and the 2A in general is to have believed Hussein Obama when he said he didn't want to take away your guns.

January 16, 2009, 01:20 PM
Can someone explain to me what the hell a cop killer bullet is?

Same thing an "assault weapon" is, and a "high powered sniper rifle" and a "saturday night special".

Made up names that help them try to ban certain classifications of firearms based solely on some irrational fear.

Duke of Doubt
January 16, 2009, 02:09 PM
Cy: "But But I thought Vince Foster committed suicide?"

Heh-heh. I'm not a conspiracy theorist. I believe man walked on the moon; I believe Oswald acted alone (that doesn't mean that a lot of interesting funny business wasn't going on); and I'm here to tell you that United Flight 175 hit the Pentagon with a sound of thunder.

But I've walked Fort Marcy Park myself, and I knew Vince's attorney personally.

I believe Vince Foster shot himself in Fort Marcy Park with a mixed 1913 Colt Army Special like I believe in the Tooth Fairy.

January 16, 2009, 02:13 PM
Coburn: Assault weapons? Whether or not you think that ban ought to be re-regulated.

Holder: I think making the assault weapons ban permanent would be permitted under Heller.
OK. Are we clear? To Holder Heller means exactly squat.


January 16, 2009, 02:18 PM
There is absolutely no evidence to support that Holder has changed his views, any more than believing Obama has now changed from a career-long support of gun control measures to one to "supports the second amendment."

Hell ... Holder just last year signed on to a long treatise trying to argue that the 2a protected no individual right at all, and if that argument didn't cut the mustard, then anything including a total ban on handguns was a reasonable restrictions.

He just said it ... he thinks that reasonable restrictions are allowed (read in his mind mandated) under Heller.

If you believe his testimony statements mean anything in a practical sense as supporting the 2A, then you are pulling the wool over your own eyes.

Duke of Doubt
January 16, 2009, 02:18 PM
Actually, I'm not sure that the Assault Weapon Ban would violate Heller, myself. I hope it would. But think about it; the "ban" didn't really "ban" much; it took away some accessories and features from certain types of rifles. But considering the SAR-1 was legal to import under the AWB, and the Romanian SKS was legal to import under the AWB, it's hard to say the AWB restricts freedom very much if at all. It's just a nuisance.

Travis Bickle
January 16, 2009, 02:44 PM
Can someone explain to me what the hell a cop killer bullet is?

I think what they mean by that is cartridges that will penetrate body armor. As you probably know, this is a complete red herring, since armor piercing handgun rounds are already illegal and have been for a long time, and just about all rifle rounds will pierce body armor and there's no way to manufacture them so that they won't. It's just a way to scare Sally soccer mom into voting Democrat and supporting gun control.

January 16, 2009, 02:53 PM
The biggest problem in my view is that when it comes to "assault weapons", "cop Killer Bullets", "Saturday night Specials" and a host of other things including what is and isn't a machinegun the Attorney Generals views are the final interpretations. Look at the CFR and see how often it says "or as the Attorney General may direct". For years you could import barrels with parts kits and then Gonzales "reinterpreted" the rules. Holder would be in charge of the ATF. If a shoelace can be a machinegun (a shoelace used to connect the trigger to the bolt of a semi auto rifle is a machinegun by the ATF) then what else is going to be. Theoretically any semi auto firearm could be modified to fire more than one shot with each pull of the trigger and therefore, depending on your interpretation of easily converted, would be a machinegun. As of 1986 no more machineguns for civilians. Now you have the basis for a ban in semi auto weapons because, according to Holder/ATF, they are machineguns. Of course police and criminals would still have them, one legally and one illegally. Plus no grandfather because you can't register your now machine gun so it would be confiscated all nice and legal. Now civilians can only have revolvers and bolt action rifles. Maybe the hunters won't care since most don't hunt with semi auto rifles and only the semi shotguns would be affected so it divides the gun owners and the only ones raising a fuss are labels nuts and wackos and you don't Really need a semi auto firearm. Next would probably be High power rifles as they are "COP KILLERS" with lots of video of bullets from rifles going through "bullet proof vests" to illustrate the point. Now all we have are 22's and shotguns. Shotguns are reinterpreted to be destructive devices based on greated than 1/2 inch bore so must be registered. so now all we have are small caliber revolvers. Most people do not realize how much power the Attorney General has to make and change rules within the CFR. To change a regulation I believe all they have to do is have it published and a period for public comment. Nothing says that even if the public is 100% against it they cannot still implement the change. I could be wrong about that and obviously it is a worst case scenario but you see how it could happen.

January 16, 2009, 11:41 PM
''I believe Vince Foster shot himself in Fort Marcy Park with a mixed 1913 Colt Army Special like I believe in the Tooth Fairy...''
With the wrong hand,with the blood in the body pooled in the wrong side of the body,and no blood on the scene...

January 17, 2009, 01:07 AM
Cyborg beat me to it.

Their lips are moving. Be worried.

January 18, 2009, 08:31 AM
This new stance could be a good sign. They are using the Heller decision as a scapegoat for not pushing their special interest "contributor's" agendas. The real reason of course is fear of political fallout, the new liberal regime could care less about the supreme court or the constitution. But they do care about the polls, and the Heller decision is a nice convenient scapegoat defense against the strong anti-gunner despots.

Carl N. Brown
January 18, 2009, 08:58 AM
The Constitution refers to the government as having powers and authorities, and refers to individuals having rights (copyright, patent and a congressman's immunity from arrest while Congress is in session) and privileges (habeus corpus, which is a privilege since it can be suspended in wartime).

In that context, how can anyone see the words "right of the people" in the first, second and fourth Amendments to the Constitution and read a "collective right" or power of the state for the 2ndA?

I'll trust Holder not.

Anytime these leftists start talking about the rights of government, I want to put a copy of the constitution before their face with the references to Powers and Authorities highlighted and demand where does the Constitution grant rights to the government?

winston smith
January 18, 2009, 09:11 AM
To update Regan: Trust, buy buy an AR or three.

There is no way Holder will chance a slapdown by the SCOTUS; neither wil he side with the angels in any decision he makes.

We need to begin to roll back GC violations of the Second Amendment thhough innovative arguments based on what is reasonable and done elsewhere. For example NY State's ban on full capacity magazines constitutes the death penalty for the victims of crimes, if they need more than 10 shots in a self-defence situation. Is that reasonable? The Death Penalty? When other states have no such restriction? How is that equality under the law? Argue it!

California cases will be more expensive; the ninth circus- Opps- ninth circuit - will side with the Left; those cases will need to go all the way up.

Some places will give up without a fight. You never know untill you try.

Duke of Doubt
January 18, 2009, 09:54 AM
I agree in principle, Winston. Several Chicago suburbs repealed their handgun bans in the immediate wake of Heller, some without a fight. I lived in one of those suburbs many years ago when the ban passed, and it was surreal. A bleeding heart Village Board member introduced the bill and it passed one night with no public discussion or debate. Just like that, handguns were banned. Of course, the rule largely was ignored. I personally not only ignored it, but privately flouted it. When the Village Board finally repealed the ban all these years later, the bleeding heart was still around (long gone from the Board), and was apoplectic with rage. I loved it. I no longer live anywhere near there, but family does, and so I got the skinny. "Total meltdown. Like a kid whose ice cream fell off the cone." Got to love that.

January 18, 2009, 01:00 PM
Convince the CATO institute you are a good plaintiff and file a suit!

Master Blaster
January 18, 2009, 01:27 PM
The cop killer bullet montra has been used before. It was part of some legislation that went through the senate in 2003. The usual gunnbanners sponsored and wrote it. The idea was a performance based ammunition test for police officer safety. If the bullet could penetrate a level 2 vest commonly worn by police officers it would be banned from civilian possesion. This included ALL rifle rounds from the .30-,30 on up. The testing would be under the auspices of the attorney general who could decide what calibers were to be banned.

The measure was hottly debated in the senate , and I remember Teddy Kennedy standing up and righteously demanding that :

"the sale of a dangerous armor piercing round like the .30-.30, that can shoot through an armored limosine, at hardware and sporting goods stores with no background check is an OUTRAGE and a danger to police officers everywhere, and must be stopped!!!

Of course everyone can see what the result of this bill which was defeated would have been.

All rifle rounds banned and/ or restricted, shotgun slugs, and large caliber handguns .357 magnum and up would be banned or restricted.

The bill thankfully failed, but look for its cousin to come up again Holder is talking about an bigtime ammo ban and we are in trouble for sure.

January 18, 2009, 01:33 PM
When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty. Thomas Jefferson

I smell a lot of fear here... :)

If you enjoyed reading about "Holder's new views on the 2A" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!