Anti-Gun appointee Eric Holder (NRA News)

[Honey Pot Hounds]

Friday, January 16, 2009
Anti-Gun appointee Eric Holder (NRA News)

Obama Appointees Face Hearings

Friday, January 16, 2009

As the inauguration of Barack Obama approaches, the men and women he has nominated are starting to face questions in their Senate confirmation hearings. In a number of cases, this includes some high-profile appointees who will have a significant impact on the Obama administration's policies on firearms rights.

Chief among these is Attorney General designate Eric Holder, who has a long history of opposition to the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. There are already significant concerns about Holder's nomination. "I have many serious questions about Mr. Holder's nomination," said Senator David Vitter (R-La.). "At the top of the list are his anti-Second Amendment right positions. He's clearly advocated near universal licensing and registration, and he joined and filed an amicus brief in the District of Columbia v. Heller U.S. Supreme Court case arguing that the Second Amendment was not an individual right. That's deeply disturbing."

NRA has also opposed Holder's confirmation, and strongly believes he will actively work to restrict gun owners' rights. (See the letter to Senators Patrick Leahy and Arlen Specter from NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre and NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris Cox here.)

In Holder's first day of questioning before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) confronted Holder on his position on gun owner's rights. Coburn asked Holder what his post- Heller position is on the Second Amendment. Holder responded in a very Obama-like manner, saying, "Well, I think that post-Heller, the options that we have in terms of regulating the possession of firearms has (sic) been narrowed. I don't think that it has been eliminated. And I think that reasonable restrictions are still possible." He also revealed his own anti-gun beliefs when he said "I think we operated for a good many years with the assumption that the Second Amendment referred to a collective right."

Indeed, his support for this position was made clear in an amicus brief Holder signed in the Heller case, which incorrectly claimed that the collective right interpretation had been the official position of the U.S. Department of Justice since the Franklin Roosevelt Administration. (Holder's brief did, however, accurately describe the anti-gun position of the Clinton-Reno DOJ in which Holder served.)

In further questioning, Holder was asked about his position on the permissibility of a new gun ban. Holder stated his support for passage of a new semi-auto ban and stated his belief that such a gun ban would not violate Heller.

In later questioning, Sen. Coburn pressed Holder on his position on right-to-carry laws in the states. Senator Coburn attempted to ascertain if Holder, as Attorney General would work to restrict state carry laws. Holder refused to give a yes or no answer, instead resorting to a claim that such an effort is not on the Obama Administration's agenda or part of their planning. Since President-elect Obama has clearly stated his opposition to right-to-carry, Holder's unwillingness to answer Coburn's question directly should cause great concern for gun owners.

Holder's history of antagonism to gun rights includes support for the imposition of a waiting period on handgun sales even after the instant check system became available. He also supported one-gun-a-month handgun rationing, and gun show regulations that would have given the federal government the power to shut down gun shows across the country.

Holder's record is clear: he opposes individual ownership of guns, and said the appeals court decision leading up to the Heller case that struck down the D.C. gun ban "opens the door to more people having more access to guns," as if that fact alone was bad. The question now is: When Holder claims to support the right to bear arms as defined in Heller, is that just empty rhetoric? Or will he pursue the same policies he has always worked for, including the undoing of Heller itself?

Also testifying before the Judiciary Committee was Stephen P. Halbrook, one of the leading Second Amendment attorneys in America. Halbrook has represented NRA and individual gun owners in many critical cases, including the current Second Amendment challenge to D.C.-style gun bans in the Chicago area. Halbrook took Holder to task for his positions. As Halbrook put it in his written testimony:

"Eric Holder has taken a constricted view of Second Amendment rights. Millions of law-abiding Americans exercise the right to keep and bear arms. Mr. Holder's opinion is that the people have no such right unless they are commanded to exercise it in a formal militia, which renders the right meaningless. He has advocated requiring that all firearm owners be registered with the government and that failure to comply be punished as a felony with substantial imprisonment. The restrictions he favors threaten traditional civil liberties.

"Many Americans have reason to be uneasy about Mr. Holder's nomination for Attorney General. They deserve to have a person in this role who is committed to upholding all parts of the Constitution, including the Second Amendment. Unfortunately, Mr. Holder has proven himself not to be that person."

In another important hearing, this one before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) asked Susan Rice, Obama's nominee to be the U.S. representative to the United Nations, about the threats to our gun rights posed by that international body. Rice responded: "Senator, the right to bear arms, as you know very well, is embedded in our constitution the actions and decisions of an international body will never and do never override our own constitution and international law." She continued, "We will not find ourselves in a situation where we allow international prerogatives to ever override our constitution."

This response is encouraging, but we will have to see if the new administration lives up to Ms. Rice's words. Regardless, the new strategy of anti-gun politicians seems clear: say whatever it takes to win, and then do what you really believe later.

[Newt]

Hard on gun owners, unless they are terrorists. From now on we will use a soft pillow to gain information. After blaming the bungling of the CIA for the lack of accurate information that led to the bombing of the towers and the start of the Iraqi war, he has appointed Leon Pannetta, a life long bureaucrat as head of the CIA. Pannetta is such a weak choice even the experienced democrats are questioning and scratching their heads.

[Honey Pot Hounds]

Hard on gun owners, unless they are terrorists. From now on we will use a soft pillow to gain information. After blaming the bungling of the CIA for the lack of accurate information that led to the bombing of the towers and the start of the Iraqi war, he has appointed Leon Pannetta, a life long bureaucrat as head of the CIA. Pannetta is such a weak choice even the experienced democrats are questioning and scratching their heads.

I was giving the man the benefit of the doubt until he appointed Pannetta. Since then he has appointed at least a half dozen lousy choices and I am not counting Hillary! I really was hopeful he might be "okay" since I had no choice but to HOPE once he was already voted in. Now I am convinced it is going to be four years of really hard work at the legislative level to retain any of our rights as breeders, hunters, etc., and our country is going to become very vulnerable to another big attack.

The only positive I can see is that with Obama spending even crazier than Pres. Bush (my main beef with Bush) the legislators aren't going to be able to afford to implement half of these bills, especially when we get the hit that the towel heads have been planning for the last 7+ years.

[Pike Ridge Beagles]

Nothing will surprise me under this administration....nothing at all. In fact, I expect much worse to come. He is going to by like slick Willie on steroids. Of course the LIBERAL BIASED MEDIA will cover for their godman.
Hang on boys and girls...it's going to be a long bumpy ride.

[CPC]

Who implemented the Brady Bill?, I can't remember.

[mybeagles]

Pike Ridge,

We found some common ground. I dont like liberal politicians, but Im beginning to think there isnt much difference between then. One side back tracks the other side just goes back and reruns the old track.

Imagine being in the military with these political backtrackers. <=====

[klrconcrete]

What do each of you do for a living? I am a small buisness owner that employs three other men- a concrete and masonry contractor to be exact. Pleae answer. Kurt Robinson

[Tim H]

CPC, Bill Clinton signed it into law.

[beaglechase]

the second admendment is very plain in its entereity. right to bear arms, if we would let this happen, with our military spread so thin we would incourage a invasion on ourselves, I don't believe that the majority of the democrats would invite this, especially since history has shown us this disarming the public would be a disaster. how long has Eric Holder been trying to take the guns out of the american public's hands? though I know my state is trying to delay the concealed weapons permits, with no probable cause. makes you wonder?

[Panther Creek]

It doesn't surprise me about Obama. I told everybody on here before he was elected that he was bad news for gun owners & hunters. So if you voted for him, you can't complain.

[tommyg]

The only way the Government can control the people is to take Guns,the Liberals figured this out long ago and its been in the works for years. Give people welfare that are just as able to work as anyone to buy votes and put on a show how they care for illegals when they don't care for anyone is how Liberals lead the Sheepole of this welfare nation,scare tactics like Global warming is how they keep them in line,sad thing is people actualy belive them. Belive one thing if anything they want your guns and they want to control every aspect of our lives the only way not to see it is to want the same things or be dumb,their is no other choise. How people could vote a Liberal in office that owns guns has to be the stupidest most moronic thing they could do. Not to mention Big Government-Abortion-Anti God and some of the sillyist law suits one could imagine by the ACLU and others. This sickness will be with us for years in the courts. Michel Savage says it best Liberalism is a mental disorder. We are the United States of the offended.

[DoubleEagle]

Who implemented the Brady Bill?, I can't remember.

The Brady Bill was a Bi-Partisan "response" to the attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan. The Bill was named after James Brady who was Reagan's Press Secretary and in the line of fire when the President was shot.

After that Sarah Brady, the wife of Jim Brady, fought for 6 years to get the Brady Bill passed. And the final draft was finally co-sponsored by some big names from both sides... Henry Waxman (D), Nancy Pelosi (D), James Leach (R), and Porter Goss (R and former director of the CIA). There were an additional 151 co-sponsors but I thought those are some names that would be easily recognized.

Not sure if that covers your question but I hope it dispells the myth that the Brady Bill was one side or the other... that one was both sides. And the world is less safe because of it. Let's face it, our elected Representatives are still human and do make mistakes. They let their emotions get the best of them and we paid for it.

Now I am not going to sit here and say I like Obama's appointment. But if we are gonna start blaming people for the Brady Bill then we need to make sure we blame both sides. Other than that, write your Representative when something new like this pops up. It's what they are there for... heck I at mine as much as possible. Not sure if it does any good but I sure feel better after I do it.

[Tim H]

DoubleEagle, just to clarify, my answer was not meant to be one sided, I wasn't sure what the question was asked for, so I gave the straightest answer I could without reading things into. I see that bill the same way you do as far as trying to assign blame but didn't think that was what was being asked.

[CPC]

I was not blaming either side with the question. I was trying to keep the gun control debate in check and ur responses added to the discussion, thanks.

[Tim H]

As far as the gun control issue is concerned, I don't see any doubt that Obama and Co. will pass massive gun control legislation. Will the Republicans get on board with it? Who cares? This is the Obama administration and Democrats congress, I think if we watch we will see what they are all about.