Posted on 11/28/2008 7:02:51 PM PST by neverdem
"As President, I will uphold the constitutional rights of law-abiding gun-owners, hunters, and sportsmen. I know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne." That was Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama on June 26, 2008, responding to the Supreme Court's landmark decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, which struck down Washington, DC's draconian handgun ban and held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms—not a collective one.
"I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals," Obama went on, "but I also identify with the need for crime-ravaged communities to save their children from the violence that plagues our streets through common-sense, effective safety measures."
While it wasn't exactly a ringing endorsement of the decision, Obama's statement was an improvement over his previous equivocations. But that line about Chicago and Cheyenne definitely stood out. Chicago, after all, has a gun ban in place that's just as constitutionally dubious as the one struck down in Heller. Indeed, Alan Gura, the attorney who successfully argued Heller before the Court, is now working on the challenge to the Windy City law.
So last week's announcement that President-elect Obama has tapped outspoken gun control advocate Eric Holder to serve as his attorney general should come as something less than a complete shock. Holder, who served as deputy attorney general under President Bill Clinton and as acting attorney general under President George W. Bush (a position he held until John Ashcroft was confirmed), has pushed for sweeping and restrictive gun control measures throughout his career while also endorsing the now-discredited collective rights interpretation of the Second Amendment. Obama's selection of Holder raises some serious concerns about his administration's commitment to upholding the entire Bill of Rights.
In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, for instance, Holder took to the pages of The Washington Post, where he played on the public's newfound fear of terrorism to lobby for additional gun show regulations. But as National Review's Jim Geraghty recently pointed out, of the two "terrorists" that Holder claimed were stalking America's gun show circuit, one was eventually acquitted of supplying guns to terrorists (though not of the separate charge of weapons smuggling), while the other, a man named Ali Boumelhem, didn't buy so much as a camouflage vest at a gun show. Since he had a felony record he let his brother do the shopping. In Holder's mind, that's a "loophole" that needs closing, but as Geraghty notes, "background checks like the one Holder was calling for would not have stopped [it], since the straw purchaser (the surrogate for the real buyer) is chosen because he has a clean record." Unless Holder wants to forbid gun sales to people with disreputable family members or friends, it's hard to imagine how any law could prevent this situation.
More recently, Holder was one of thirteen former Justice Department officials to sign an amicus brief on behalf of the D.C. government in the Heller case. That document, which endorsed restrictive gun control measures and cited rare and sensational events like the Columbine and Virginia Tech school shootings as evidence of "the deadly toll that firearms exact," also made the case for the collective rights interpretation that has now been rejected by both the Supreme Court and leading liberal legal scholars.
What does all this mean for Eric Holder's Department of Justice? Nothing good, says Second Amendment scholar and Independence Institute Research Director David Kopel. As Kopel told me via email, under the leadership of Attorney General Janet Reno and Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder, "the DOJ used the U.S. Attorneys offices for the aggressive prosecution of gun owners and sellers, often on flimsy charges. We may expect many more such prosecutions under Holder." Moreover, Holder's turf now includes the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives, which was transferred from the Treasury Department to the Justice Department after 9/11. That's one tool that Reno didn't have in her kit. "Now that the Bureau is part of DOJ," Kopel explained, "Attorney General Holder will have great power to force the imposition of onerous new regulations on firearms sales, on firearms stores, and on manufacturers."
Attorney General John Ashcroft, of course, famously attacked critics of the government's anti-terrorism policies for chasing "phantoms of lost liberty" and giving "ammunition to America's enemies." Let's hope that Second Amendment supporters won't be chasing as many "phantoms" once Eric Holder inherits the Bush administration's sweeping law enforcement powers.
Damon W. Root is an associate editor at reason.
Obama should have been called on that one.
I'm in Texas, we do it diferently here. And I will NOT register my weapons.
Wonder what the difference is?
1) Every marcher would have to be an actual gun-owner
2) Each marcher would carry an umbrella
3) No marcher would carry or possess a weapon of any kind or ammo during the march.
I think the message would be clear and instructive.
“Arms” as they were understood by the Founding Fathers. Nothing more modern is okay. (Just a poor guess..)
I too am in Texas and will not register either but that doesn’t mean they won’t try it !
Why bother changing it when he can load the courts and ignore it. FDR threatened to put an additional 6 yes men on the Supreme Court to get his unconstitutional legislation through. Obama only needs to put on two more and then he will have a permanent 6-5 vote on anything he wants.
3) No marcher would carry or possess a weapon of any kind or ammo during the march.
Without #3, how do you establish #1?
Also, I know a woman with a felony conviction who remains an NRA member due to her political convictions. Her family has a lot of guns and hunt. Does she march or not?
Unfortunately that’s still legal from what I understand. It would cause a political firestorm, but he could do it.
A major boost to the 2nd Amendment might be found in a substitute for the propellant and primers used today, that is far more stable and can be stored for decades. Perhaps as a binary compound that does not become active until mixed together.
This is because today, cartridges are the easiest target for gun control. They are attacked in several ways: by trying to outlaw the use of lead, claiming pollution; by trying to force micro tag chemical blends into the propellant, even by requiring serial numbers on bullets and casings.
It’s self evident ain’t it.......:o)
USA Killing grounds ;
Chicago
Washington DC
St Louis
Los Angeles
Kansas City
Detroit
Private ownership and CCW/CHL carry not permitted ;
Chicago
Washington DC
St Louis
Los Angeles
Kansas City
Detroit
Facts are that states with concealed carry laws had crimes against persons incidents drop after such laws were enacted.
Criminals don’t follow laws now and will not follow laws later.
I’m not contesting what you say, but why don’t you post data?
Obama should have been called on that one and many others. We're screwed with this MSM. The left is hopeless. But with moderates and independents so hopelessly ignorant by their dependence on the MSM, I guess events like Nov. 4 were bound to happen. I'm afraid we're looking at the Great Depression II with Obama making a hash of the economy like FDR did.
Your correct. Merely producing a primer that erodes over a calender year will make bulk storage for all but LEO’s and DOD assets self destruct / expire.
I trust those interested in marching to relate honestly whether or not they own a gun. The purpose would be to show the demorons what 2-3 million armed Americans look like so only those capable of actually hitting the field if the need arises should march.
I would hope it was obvious ? I just listed a few. Not all inclusive by far. Didn’t even include Philly etc .....
Links on my homepage will lead you to the facts you seek.
Hope yer well....stay safe !
Anyone, left or right, who believes that Obama will keep any particular promise is a fool. Anyone who believes that Obama will not all but abolish the Second Amendment with tons of “reasonable restrictions” is a damn fool.
This concept opens a whole new horizon for the majority. Just do what you want if you get 51%. Course, not having to follow the law usually ends up with anarchy and a dictator to follow. But hey, you have to start somewhere, like refusing to show your birth certificate to anyone. My daughter had to show hers to get in college and to apply to the police force.
I meant why not post the crime statistics for the cities you referenced.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.