« Palin and McCain - Change You Can Put in Your Pocket | Main | Morality In Media Endorses Communist Crackdown On Free Speech »

Eric Holder's Second Amendment Views Sure To Raise Controversy

Attorney General Eric Holder's views that the Second Amendment only allows for organized militia ownership of firearms is sure to raise a great deal of controversy among gun owners over the next four years. In fact, since the election, the number of Americans seeking federal permits to own a gun has skyrocketed to the highest levels ever recorded, as many fear that the private ownership of guns might be severely limited by new legal efforts of this new attorney general. Holder might attempt to place a higher value or what he views as public safety vs. upholding a strict reading of Second Amendment rights. Certainly this could set up some serious Supreme Court fights and cases.eric holder.jpg

Gun owners who prefer handguns or assault type rifles are the most fearful of new legal attempts by Holder to limit or ban the sale of such weapons. The fear is that Holder will not try to strike the careful balance between the ownership of guns by law abiding citizens and attempts to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, the mentally ill or children. Holder also is worrisome to many who support the First Amendment as well.

What makes Holder such a controversial choice for attorney general is that he holds such restrictive views of many portions of the bill of rights, and may feel that his own views or some misguided sense of public safety could guide his legal views on issues like Second Amendment rights or First Amendment press freedoms.

The current conservative leaning makeup of the U.S. Supreme Court as well as some possible defections of those like Justice John Paul Stevens who seems to champion the Bill Of Rights should probably be more than enough to strike down any overreaching attempts by Holder to go too far. However, Holder might clearly attempt some new law enforcement tactics to weaken the Second Amendment as well as First Amendment freedoms. His legal philosophy is very disturbing to strong upholders of Bill Of Rights freedoms in all areas.

There are also some disturbing federal cases that Holder might attempt to champion. In one case, a gun owner loaned a legal assault weapon to a friend that misfired at a shooting range, and the federal government then brought illegal machine gun charges against the gun owner who has faced huge legal bills as well as serious criminal charges. It is pretty obvious that this was a fully legal weapon, and that the illegal machine gun charges are simply overreaching and unfair. However, Holder might choose for the Justice Department to champion such outrageous cases in an effort to mount up a number of legal challenges to weaken the Second Amendment.

My own personal feelings are that guns might cause a great deal of problems in society, however the Second Amendment does very clearly allow for the ownership of private firearms. And my personal fears are that Eric Holder might hold views where he believes far less in upholding the Bill Of Rights, than what he believes best suits his own legal philosophy of law or what he thinks is in the best interests of society. That can be very dangerous to the Bill Of Rights, and should be a subject of great concern to any civil libertarian.

I think this issue might raise a pretty lively discussion here.


Note: Wizbang Blue is now closed and our authors have moved on. Paul Hooson can now be found at Wizbang Pop!. Please come see him there!

  • Currently 3.6/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Rating: 3.6/5 (7 votes cast)


Comments (11)

Deke:

Here is what's gonna happen and finally tip the scales for either 1: States declaring their article X rights or 2: Enough states calling for an article V convention that it will finally happen.

Nobama will have the opportunity to appoint a judge, for one of the retiring strict constructionists, this will be one of the most liberal judges ever on the court. The Supreme Court will then "find" in the constitution that the intent of the 2nd Amendment doesn't mean that states can't limit, as they see fit, gun ownership. A state like Vermont or Conn. will promptly ban hand guns and severely restrict rifles and shotguns, causing their ownership to be unreasonable.

Soon a criminal will committ a crime using a weapon purchased from another state. Said state will then sue the former for damages and costs of enforcing their ridiculous weapon ban. Holder and the Nobama administration will promptly take up the case in favor of the banning state. Eventually the case will reach the Supremes, whereby they will find in favor of the Justice dept., in a de-facto attempt to bankrupt the state with less gun restrictions and as a means to serve as a warning to other states that they "Better get on the banning" bandwagon.

As states begin to ban guns in order to protect themselves, the sheep..errr normal American Citizen will finally wake up and demand action. I feel this is a very likely scenario and won't be surprised in the least if it happens. Obama and the left are really stretching and mis-reading the election. They, like Clinton are moving too fast to the left and much like Clinton, will have trouble and go dwn as a horrible presidency, no matter how hard the MSM works to make it appear otherwise

bryanD:

The government's longstanding insistence of conflating ad hoc militia and a regular armed force is certainly for gun confiscation purposes. Luckily the police and military are riven with citizen 2nd Amendment fifth columnists. Unfortunately, command cells can intimidate most within the ranks by dividing and exampling and otherwise cowing others, not to mention making an end run by resorting to paramiltary statist hardliners and mercenary-types such as fills the ranks of the BATF and are tucked away in Special Forces and Delta Force. The Masked Ones. See Waco: Rules of Engagement.

"The current conservative leaning makeup of the U.S. Supreme Court"-ph...

...Will stand by when push comes to shove. They've proven it over and over again.

The "conservative" members of the Supreme Court are each members of the Federalist Society which glorifies The State (in the name of Lincoln, or something) over any states' rights or citizens' prerogatives. And they really think they're slick about it, too, buying sinecures for any Republican lawyer-politician who will agree to shut up about the important things in order to perform political kabuki theater against Democrats and liberals across the airwaves, wasting valuable media time, but usually just to keeping themselves shut up against paramount issues. Neglect and omission and poker games and book tours. But "no cameras in the courtroom!" That's Scalia & Friends. Pantloads, Inc.

"Enough states calling for an article V convention that it will finally happen."-deke

Beware. The Rockefeller Republicans (Ford, Simon, etc) have been pushing for a constitutional convention since the mid 1970s because a constitutional convention can be easily highjacked beyond its stated and specific purpose once it is in session. The issue is in fact still open and certain state legislatures' ratifications In Favor still on the books. Oklahoma's new Republican State Congress (both houses) is moving to annul the old "for", circa late-70s, to "against". Because a constitutional convention would be a disaster.

The closest the people came to "righting things" on a grand scale, was with the term limits movement. The Supreme Court made sure to nip that it the bud! And now Kelo, dissolving the guarantee of private property. Mark my words. Hope I'm wrong.

Final thought. Obama, so far, seems to be a hands-off executive, his talk and symbolizing notwithstanding. Closely along the lines of GW Bush, in fact. The foxes are guarding the proverbial chicken coop. Obama DOES need his Blackberry taken away.

GarandFan:

People like Eric Holder are why the Founding Fathers put the 2nd Amendment in the Constitution. Is there any wonder as to why said individuals want to water it down or abolish it?

irongrampa:

".....the right of the [people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."


End of discussion.

What I personally find so troubling about Holder is a whole pattern of opinions from him that seem to hold civil liberties and the Bill Of Rights in such a low regard. I was really expecting any AG under an Obama presidency to want to prove a significant change from Ashcroft/Gonzales/Mukasey and express a far higher regard for the Bill Of Rights. Even Janet Reno under Clinton seemed to hold the Bill Of Rights in a fairly high regard compared to a history of very troubling statements from Mr. Holder. If Mr. Holder actually pursues such a radical mission of disregard for the Bill Of Rights, then I predict he might be forced to resign at some point, because neither liberals or conservatives will have faith in him. And with no political support, it will be difficult for him to remain in office.

Mr. Holder's "nation of cowards" comment also wasn't very helpful the other day as well. Many times it was actually federal authorities who refused to act to defend civil rights. And during much of the 60's under Hoover's direction the FBI sought to undermine Dr. Martin Luther King, possibly allowed his assassination according to some evidence, or failed to act against unlawful acts by the KKK or local sheriffs who violated civil rights.

Mr. Holder is quickly making himself a center of too much controversy for the Obama Administration, and is becoming a real distraction.

GarandFan:

Given Mr Holder's past actions, his gun is for hire to the highest bidder. Does that make him a capitalist or a hypocrite? Or just your average run of the mill lawyer?

GarandFan, I actually view Mr. Holder as a self-righteous rogue lawyer who is self-intoxicated in his own beliefs, thoroughly self-convinced that only he knows what is good for society and should make those determinations. That's a dangerous philosophy for anyone actually holding as much power as Mr. Holder.

Mr. Holder could okay efforts to ban the private ownership of some types of guns based on views that somehow the benefit to society outweighs the cost to society in freedoms. Likewise on free speech issues he might well follow the same self-deluded reasoning.

None of this gives a civil libertarian like myself much hope for a high regard for the Bill Of Rights.

Deke:

Because a constitutional convention would be a disaster.


Not necessarily, was it a disaster when the founders decided to scrap the Articles of Confederation and replace it with a more stable, well thought out document? Many fear a new convention b/c they are afraid the "kooks" will have to much say so, but remember it takes 3/5 of the state delegated convention reps to pass any changes. That means that the convention would not automatically be controlled by the high population, whacko states like California. In a scenario envisioned in my post, I forsee many states delegations made up of citizens truly angry and not in the mood for Lawyerness and special interest give aways.

Some things a convention could address

Article I: Forcing the executive branch to be directly responsible for government beuracracies. Thus no more indirect taxation from unelected beuraucrats from the EPA, etc.,

Article II: No person shall hold office for more than 12 yrs consecutive. The biggest problem we have now is that states are just as invested in incumbancy as the hacks themselves, the more senior your delegation the more pork they bring home. This would go a long way to help break that cycle.

Article III: Justices will be reconfirmed every 10 years to coincide with the U.S. Census. When our founders made the bench a lifetime appointment I don't think they envisioned people living to 90+ and serving for half a century.

Amend I: English as the official language. All federal documents will be printed in plain English only and English proficiency as a requirement for citizenship.

Amend II: The right of indiv. citizens to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, excluding weapons of mass destruction.

Amend XIV: Needs to be cleaned up so that only those born in the U.S. to LEGAL residents or LEGAL non residents are U.S. citizens.

Abolish the 16th amendment, to this day I still don't understand how we have become so complacent with the confiscation of our wealth by the Federal Gov't. Jefferson, Adams, etc., are prob. screaming their lungs out whereever they may be.

A balanced budget amendment needs to be added with the caveot that defense budget aside, that is the main job of our gov't btw, the total expenditures of the U.S. govt shall not exceed inflation plus pop growth in any given year.

These are some things that a convention could do and go a long way in helping to keep us from going dwn the road the old Roman Republic went down before their fall all those years ago.

Knightbrigade:

Holder won't DARE.....

The economy putting stress on society is bad enough.

Now add in any effort to start taking away rights, ESPECIALLY 2nd Amendment rights, and I see 100's of Tim McVeigh types saying "oh YA!, from MY cold dead hands!"

Then Nancy, Reid, Holder, etc. are removed from office....in favor of a Government that is more (BY the people, FOR the people.)

Mark Bernhardt:

President Obama's anti-gun Attorney General Eric Holder, besides calling America a nation of cowards, stated his view that the Second Amendment only allows for organized militia ownership of firearms. I cannot believe the arrogance of Holder. He professes to know more than the body of our founding fathers that wrote and ratified the Bill Of Rights. Patrick Henry said "The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun." Thomas Jefferson said "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes." And George Mason, "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." These quotes along with similar statements from Samuel Adams, Richard Henry Lee, and many other of our founding fathers are from the very men who gave us a free nation at a heavy personal price and in doing so assured our freedoms with a Constitution that included the Bill Of Rights that guarantees these listed rights of the people. For Mr. Holder to claim his opinion is correct and the very men who wrote, debated, and affirmed this most important of all historic documents are wrong leads me to wonder if Holder is not truly the cowardly bully, using his weight as attorney general to attempt to deny the right of the people to be armed while he is personally protected by an armed police force. If Mr. Holder is allowed to undermine your Second Amendment rights, what will he go after next? All ten amendments of the Bill Of Rights are rights guaranteed to the people and not the state or federal governments. It is a shame that Mr. Holder's preference as Attorney General is to destroy your rights rather than defend them.

Allen:

Well, Mr, Holder can have my guns when they pry them out of my dead hands. No way in hell is the average American who owns guns, going to just give them up.


Advertisments

Categories

Archives

Technorati



Add to Technorati Favorites

Credits

Publisher: Kevin Aylward

Editors: Lee Ward, Larkin, Paul S Hooson, and Steve Crickmore

All original content copyright © 2007 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark. Wizbang Blue™ is a trademark of Wizbang®, LLC.

Powered by Movable Type 3.35

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.