Log in

View Full Version : Holder and the AWB - The saga continues


Paslode
02-28-2010, 20:40
.
http://abcnews.go.com/politics/story?id=6960824&page=1

Obama to Seek New Assault Weapons Ban
Previous Ban Expired in 2004 During the Bush Administration
By JASON RYAN

WASHINGTON, Feb. 25, 2009—

The Obama administration will seek to reinstate the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004 during the Bush administration, Attorney General Eric Holder said today.

"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," Holder told reporters.

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.

"I think that will have a positive impact in Mexico, at a minimum." Holder said at a news conference on the arrest of more than 700 people in a drug enforcement crackdown on Mexican drug cartels operating in the U.S.

Mexican government officials have complained that the availability of sophisticated guns from the United States have emboldened drug traffickers to fight over access routes into the U.S.

A State Department travel warning issued Feb. 20, 2009, reflected government concerns about the violence.

"Some recent Mexican army and police confrontations with drug cartels have resembled small-unit combat, with cartels employing automatic weapons and grenades," the warning said. "Large firefights have taken place in many towns and cities across Mexico, but most recently in northern Mexico, including Tijuana, Chihuahua City and Ciudad Juarez."

At the news conference today, Holder described his discussions with his Mexican counterpart about the recent spike in violence.

"I met yesterday with Attorney General Medina Mora of Mexico, and we discussed the unprecedented levels of violence his country is facing because of their enforcement efforts," he said.

Holder declined to offer any time frame for the reimplementation of the assault weapons ban, however.

"It's something, as I said, that the president talked about during the campaign," he said. "There are obviously a number of things that are -- that have been taking up a substantial amount of his time, and so, I'm not sure exactly what the sequencing will be."

In a brief interview with ABC News, Wayne LaPierre, president of the National Rifle Association, said, "I think there are a lot of Democrats on Capitol Hill cringing at Eric Holder's comments right now."

During his confirmation hearing, Holder told the Senate Judiciary Committee about other gun control measures the Obama administration may consider.

"I think closing the gun show loophole, the banning of cop-killer bullets and I also think that making the assault weapons ban permanent, would be something that would be permitted under Heller," Holder said, referring to the Supreme Court ruling in Washington, D.C. v. Heller, which asserted the Second Amendment as an individual's right to own a weapon.

The Assault Weapons Ban signed into law by President Clinton in 1994 banned 19 types of semi-automatic military-style guns and ammunition clips with more than 10 rounds.

"A semi-automatic is a quintessential self-defense firearm owned by American citizens in this country," LaPierre said. "I think it is clearly covered under Heller and it's clearly, I think, protected by the Constitution."

Copyright © 2010 ABC News Internet Ventures

MatthewD44
02-28-2010, 22:06
Call me kinda crazy but it would be easier and smarter to figure a way to cut the flow of money from the sales of DRUGS.... umm legalizing some of the cash crops would help to cut the flow of money...
Have a feeling that this will NOT work at all

Paslode
02-28-2010, 22:17
Call me kinda crazy but it would be easier and smarter to figure a way to cut the flow of money from the sales of DRUGS.... umm legalizing some of the cash crops would help to cut the flow of money...
Have a feeling that this will NOT work at all

My feeling is there are many ways to curb what goes to and from Mexico, and going the AWB route isn't one of them. If I wanted to arm my Drug Cartel with weapons I think I could get less paper work, quick delivery and more bang for my buck buying a container of AK's from a Third World Gun Dealer.


Holder is a tool.

incarcerated
02-28-2010, 22:38
My feeling is there are many ways to curb what goes to and from Mexico, and going the AWB route isn't one of them. If I wanted to arm my Drug Cartel with weapons I think I could get less paper work, quick delivery and more bang for my buck buying a container of AK's from a Third World Gun Dealer.


Holder is a tool.

Remember this?

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article/article?f=/e/a/1996/05/24/NEWS11506.dtl

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,135999,00.html

jatx
03-01-2010, 06:52
Why are you posting this as though it is new news? Can't you see that the article is a year old? :munchin

Richard
03-01-2010, 07:08
Anybody recall this discussion?

http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=22618&highlight=assault+weapons+mexico

And so it goes...;)

Richard's $.02 :munchin

Kyobanim
03-01-2010, 07:35
I thought we were talking about the Average White Band. . .

Paslode
03-01-2010, 07:46
Anybody recall this discussion?

http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=22618&highlight=assault+weapons+mexico

And so it goes...;)

Richard's $.02 :munchin

Yes Sir, along with many of these:

http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/search.php?searchid=1628089

Utah Bob
03-01-2010, 09:44
Call me kinda crazy but it would be easier and smarter to figure a way to cut the flow of money from the sales of DRUGS.... umm legalizing some of the cash crops would help to cut the flow of money...
Have a feeling that this will NOT work at all

Oh yeah, the old "Let's legalize and tax it" argument. That'll work. :rolleyes:

Defender968
03-01-2010, 13:49
Oh yeah, the old "Let's legalize and tax it" argument. That'll work. :rolleyes:

Believe it or not as an X-LEO who's still very pro LEO (who has never smoked Pot) I'd support legalizing it, in many places LEO's aren't even bothering with simple possession anymore because they've got bigger fish to fry so they either just make the perp dump it or they issue a citation much like a drinking in public, here's your fine I'll see you in court, unless you want to use it for leverage to get to something else, but that rarely works with a weed beef as they know they're not going to get any real time because the courts don't give it for simple possession, least not in my AO.

To me we should legalize it, tax the hell out of it just like cigarettes and then focus on the drugs that truly destroy lives, families, and communities, Meth and Crack would top the list.

Disclaimer: I dislike smelly hippies and stoners as much as the next guy, and I don't support the weed/pothead lifestyle in any way but what we're currently doing isn't really stopping it IMO and in my time as an LEO I just didn't see too many lives destroyed from smoking a joint, I did however see many families/lives decimated from smoking rock or meth.

Just .02

incarcerated
03-02-2010, 17:41
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704548604575097560651300490.html?m od=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsSecond

Court Leans to Pro-Gun-Rights Ruling

MARCH 2, 2010, 5:11 P.M. ET
By JESS BRAVIN
WASHINGTON—The Supreme Court seemed ready to rule that gun possession is fundamental to American freedom, a move that for the first time would give federal judges power to strike down state and local weapons laws for infringing Second Amendment rights.

At oral arguments Tuesday, the court considered whether its 2008 decision voiding the District of Columbia handgun ban should be extended to the rest of the country. Because Washington is a federal territory and not part of a state, the legal basis for imposing federal constitutional limits on laws adopted by states had been unclear.

None of the five justices who voted to strike down the Washington ordinance identified any reason to grant state legislatures greater leeway over gun regulations.

On its face, the legal question before the court has little relation to policy views regarding gun control, and much to do with subtle questions of constitutional history.

Before the Civil War, courts held that the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal government. After the Union victory, three Reconstruction amendments were adopted to elevate individual rights over state powers, and cement the federal role in enforcing them.

Constitutional provisions vary in scope, so the court has turned for guidance to the 14th Amendment clause that bars states from interfering with "life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

The court has held that constitutional rights fundamental to liberty, such as the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of the press, override state laws. The question is whether the Second Amendment right to bear arms is a fundamental right like freedom of speech.

In 2008, after the court voted 5-4 along its conservative-liberal split to strike down the Washington ordinance, gun-rights forces filed suit against weapons laws around the country. Tuesday's arguments involved a challenge to handgun bans in Chicago and Oak Park, Ill.

James Feldman, a Washington lawyer representing Chicago, told the court that because guns can kill innocents and aid criminals, owning them isn't a fundamental right. Moreover, he noted, the Second Amendment right "to keep and bear arms" is prefaced by the statement that "a well regulated Militia" is "necessary to the security of a free State."

Conservative justices said they had already decided in the 2008 case, District of Columbia v. Heller, that the militia clause didn't limit the amendment's scope.

"Its rationale was that because of its fundamental character, the right to bear arms must be understood as separate from the qualifying phrase of the militia clause," said Justice Anthony Kennedy. "If it's not fundamental, then Heller is wrong, it seems to me."

Chief Justice John Roberts agreed.

"I don't see how you can read Heller and not take away from it the notion that the Second Amendment, whether you want to label it fundamental or not, was extremely important to the framers in their view of what liberty meant."

Justice Stephen Breyer, one of the liberal dissenters from Heller, said that gun possession was different in nature from the other rights described in the Constitution.

When state or local lawmakers enact gun regulations, they do so aiming to protect public safety, he said.

"Here every case will be on one side guns, on the other side human life," with statistics on either side, he said. He asked Alan Gura, an Alexandria, Va., lawyer challenging the Illinois laws, why federal judges were better-positioned to make that decision than state legislatures.

"We decide that by looking, not to which side has the better statistics, but rather to what the framers said in the Constitution, because that policy choice was made for us in the Constitution," Mr. Gura said.

Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the Heller decision, said that legislatures would still have discretion over some regulations.

A ruling is expected by June.

Supporters of gun rights rallied in front of the Supreme Court building. "It is your right by virtue of being a living, breathing human being to bear arms," said 54-year-old Rob Weaver. "The Second Amendment didn't even give me that right. It is a right that pre-existed the amendment."

Benna Solomon, a lawyer for Chicago, disagreed, saying it should be the choice of states how to define the right to gun ownership.

Otis McDonald, a plaintiff in the case against Chicago, said that if the justices find in his favor, he'll first sigh in relief and then buy a gun. "It gives me a fighting chance in my neighborhood," Mr. McDonald said

—Jean Spencer contributed to this article.

Paslode
03-02-2010, 18:22
I was having nicotine withdrawals...the article I posted is from 2009.

Streck-Fu
03-02-2010, 18:35
To me we should legalize it, tax the hell out of it just like cigarettes and then focus on the drugs that truly destroy lives, families, and communities, Meth and Crack would top the list.

Disclaimer: I dislike smelly hippies and stoners as much as the next guy, and I don't support the weed/pothead lifestyle in any way but what we're currently doing isn't really stopping it IMO and in my time as an LEO I just didn't see too many lives destroyed from smoking a joint, I did however see many families/lives decimated from smoking rock or meth.

Just .02


I really wish more thought like you or would speak up to influence policy. Unfortunately this seems to be the trend we hear about: LINK (http://forums.rennlist.com/rennforums/redirect-to/?redirect=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.columbiatribune.com%2Fn ews%2F2010%2Ffeb%2F23%2Ffamily-questions-swat-drug-search-that-led-to%2F)
A SWAT raid for pot with rounds fired in an occupied house....or the Lima, OH incident where the officer shot a mother holder her infant when he didn't verify the target.