PDA

View Full Version : New Attorney General: What can we expect?


vito
February 3, 2009, 08:09 AM
Eric Holder, the newly confirmed Attorney General previously filed a brief in support of the DC handgun ban, has stated he believes in gun confiscation rather than gun control, and was a principal player as Janet Reno's deputy who didn't seem to mind using overwhelming federal force to seize a Cuban child from his family in Miami. I wonder what we can now expect in the way of: a new interpretation of the 2nd Amendment that does not support this as an individual right; changes in interpretation of current federal laws that would hinder gun rights without the need for new legislation, etc. I fear that we are in for a rough ride regarding our gun rights for the next few years.

cjw3cma
February 3, 2009, 12:49 PM
After the Supreme Court's ruling of 06/28/2008 (the DC gun ban ruling) where they for the first time ever stated that citizens have the right to keep arms in their homes for self protection, it would be very hard for any administration to push "their" agenda to try to limit what the court said. But they will try.

ThorntonMelon
February 3, 2009, 05:36 PM
New Attorney General: What can we expect?

In short...nothing good.

vito
February 3, 2009, 05:51 PM
John Ashcroft, when serving as Attorney General for President George W. Bush, issued an opinion that stated that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right, not a state right. The Federal courts give significant credibility to such statements. I fear that Mr. Holder will issue a new official AG statement on the 2nd Amendment, denying it to be an individual right. This could sway just one member of the Supreme Court to reverse the court's Heller decision. While I am not so paranoid as to believe that government agents scour these websites to amass a database of gun owners, I would not be surprised to find that some anti-gun, George Soros funded organizations are doing just that. Of course I gave away, sold or lost all of my guns many years ago so I have nothing to fear from the future knock at the door by a an ATF agent demanding I turn in my guns for my own good.

JWT
February 3, 2009, 05:53 PM
Based on Mr. Holders previous positions it's extremely unlikely he will be pro gun rights. My guess would be he will support additional 'reasonable' gun regulation 'to protect the public'. Can't see anything good in the future with him in place.

44 AMP
February 3, 2009, 09:48 PM
With people who hold very similar political and personal beliefs. Some few of them have included members with opposing views on different individual subjects, and a general agreement overall.

With the new adminsitration's positions filling up with many people who have a long history of supporting, and even actively working, for every proposal to restrict citizens from buying and owning the firearms of their choice, I see little reason to expect them to be anything less than they have proven to be in the past.

I fully expect all members of the new administration to do their best to advance their personal agendas, all for the good of the nation, of course. As far as guns and gun rights are concerned, the administration is a lost cause. Nothing is going to get the key players to change their minds. Because they believe that they are right. I feel voicing your opinion to them will be mostly a waste of time.

The place we need to be heard is Congress. The job of congressmen is NOT to lead (even though many think other wise), it is to carry out (as in represent) the will of the people. Some of these folks will be up for re-election in 2 years. The need to be told, over and over that politically, no matter what the administration, lobbyists, or other politicians say, that gun restrictions are a dead issue politically. And if they support them, they will wind up in that same category, no matter what else they do or support.

The Constitution is clearly written. We have a right. The High Court has ruled. We have a right. And legally, until and unless they change the highest law of the land, no Attorney General, or even President"s opinion overrides it.

That being said, can the new AG influence the way the govt carries out enforcement of existing law? Yes. Can using his personal views as govt policy harm us? Yes. Is the end of life as we know it? No. But its not a step in the right direction, as far as I'm concerned.

The President can't sign into law a bill he doesn't get, no matter how much he may want to. If gun bills don't pass, or better yet don't reach the floor, we'll all be better off.

Jim March
February 3, 2009, 10:13 PM
We've got enough pro-gun Dems to keep bad bills off of Obama's desk. NOT enough to push good bills through, but that's not a huge deal right now.

At this stage of the game, we need to work the states and courts. And I don't see Obama getting in a huge gunfight right now with the economy tanking.

But...I could be wrong about that.

You would think that during the depression they had better things to think about than gun control but, let's face it, that's where NFA1934 came from and the push for the (failed thank God) "Uniform Pistol and Revolver Act".

I think we're going to see the pot prohibition collapse, for the same reason the alky prohibition fell: the states will need something new to tax to make up for lost revenue. I don't think that will lead to a lot of pot dealers turning to violent crime...maybe in Mexico? But legalize cocaine and/or meth and there could be a brief spurt of violence as the "Bloods and Crips" types turn to other means to make up the money lost, and Mexico would briefly look like a pizza with the toppings ripped off as what's left of the cartels go briefly (3 to 8 years?) bonkers.

That's the pattern that spurred Depression-era gun control.

Al Norris
February 3, 2009, 10:15 PM
I fear that Mr. Holder will issue a new official AG statement on the 2nd Amendment, denying it to be an individual right.
Shall we get our facts straight?

1. The Supreme Court has ruled that the right is individual. That little thing was a 9-0 ruling.

2. The 5-4 decision was to what, if anything, the right protects.
2a. 5 Justices (the majority), said at the barest minimum, it protects the right to own a handgun in your home for personal self defense.

Now, should the new AG issue such a ridiculous statement as above, he would be laughed out of every court in the federal system. Holder knows this and the President knows this.

And finally, Holder is on record as admitting that new gun control laws would be problematic, because of Heller.

The sky is far, far from falling.

405boy
February 4, 2009, 12:54 PM
Quote
After the Supreme Court's ruling of 06/28/2008 (the DC gun ban ruling) where they for the first time ever stated that citizens have the right to keep arms in their homes for self protection, it would be very hard for any administration to push "their" agenda to try to limit what the court said. But they will try.
__________________


CJW, you may be a bit misinformed. This was in no way a win for the 2nd amendment but a backdoor way to destroy it with this ruling. If you read the actual decision it says that yes indeed we do have the right, BUT it can also be changed by fiat law. Which in plain enlish means, they have the right, per this ruling to actually legally be able to change, ban or alter the 2nd if they follow protocol. This was a blatant and successful attack on the 2nd that slipped by most.

Al Norris
February 4, 2009, 01:23 PM
If you read the actual decision it says that yes indeed we do have the right, BUT it can also be changed by fiat law.
Would you please explain the phrase, "fiat law?"

Next, if you would be so kind, quote the exact text of the decision that says this.

405boy
February 4, 2009, 03:12 PM
First a quick primer

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2008/03/opposing-view-3.html#more

Basically if you even start to regulate a right it is no longer a right but a privelage that can be changed, you simply open it up to debate and then you are screwed. Ill post again with the comments in the reciting.

405boy
February 4, 2009, 03:16 PM
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rajiva/rajiva12.html

azredhawk44
February 4, 2009, 03:22 PM
Lew Rockwell makes for good agriprop... but isn't exactly citeable case law.:rolleyes: Perhaps you have something a bit less... entertaining... and a bit more scholarly?

405boy
February 4, 2009, 03:26 PM
Excuse me, but am I the only one here that understands we are getting screwed by the hour? Dont just sit back and ask for everyone else to do your research. Look for yourself and you shall find. Wake up!

BTW, appleseed, great group.

Glenn E. Meyer
February 4, 2009, 03:27 PM
Ok, I read it - so describe to us how this concept would actually and physically apply to take away gun rights and not engage in another court fight.

It is the case that states continued to pass laws that seem to violate SCOTUS decisions - then folks go to court and they get overturned.
Given Heller, how would a total gun ban be put in place.

The references to tyrannies basically said they ignored the laws.

405boy
February 4, 2009, 03:48 PM
Well it would result in other court battles and fights,however, here is my point. The 2nd amendment is not, never has been, and never should be open for debate, period. It says what it says, means what is says and the framers spoke English and worded it to be easily understood by all.

By the mere act of even engaging in discussion regarding the validity in certain areas of the 2nd you open yourself up to attack.

One more thing I would like to add. A lot of people bitch and moan that people always get in an uproar over the 2nd and ignore the other amendments that seem to get stepped on over and over. Here is why. Without the right to secure your protection, you have NO other rights under the constitution. If the 2nd is ever tampered with, changed or reduced on the predication of some stuff shirt congressional type then you might as well not have the Constitution because without the ability to defend it what good is it??????

We should have kept the Articles of Conf. None of the BS involved with it.

alloy
February 4, 2009, 03:53 PM
am I the only one here that understands we are getting screwed by the hour?

No, i do a bit of banking with BOA and Well's and i know im getting screwed. Coming and going. But...

Join the NRA. You need lobbyists in DC working for you. Vote your mind in 2 years. Buy what you want now, and hope there is no MASSIVE national emergency(for several reasons, including national emergencies are always a tragic drag), because otherwise i dont see anything except alot of proposals that wont fly, and possibly a throwback to the Clinton style ban which we all seem to have survived. Getting upset cant help...

But this is an uneducated view, so i guess i could be wrong. I usually am.

405boy
February 4, 2009, 03:58 PM
Alloy

I agree with you, I really do, but Im not a big fan of the NRA, gonna **** some people off here I am sure, but they seem to compromise more than stick to their guns, no pun intended.

Everyone, we are all just trying to keep our rights, thats the goal, so lets not let this posting get out of hand. Its a hot topic for sure and as of right now, I neither want to joust with any of you on this, i just chimed in, didnt want to stir up anything, just do some more research, im bowing out of this one.

Peace

Glenn E. Meyer
February 4, 2009, 04:54 PM
For my own curiousity - how do see the term 'arms' as in the 2nd. How would you define it.

Your post seems to lead into the popular discussion of absolutism in the 2nd. As we did in the loophole thread.

Certainly, we have limits on the 1st. You might read that thread as it touches on your views.

405boy
February 4, 2009, 06:36 PM
Thanks for the reference to that thread Glenn, I will search it out and read it. I define the term "arms" as to mean, a "weapon" to have for:

1. Self defense of property, self, family and innocent victims of a crime in progress.

2. Defense against outside foreign forces attempting to invade US

3. Defense of our own government against extremest attempting to overthrow it, yes, our government needs to understand that "We The People" are here for their protection as well.

4. Defense from a police state or tyrannical government, aka, NAZIS.

"Arms" are weapons, plain and simple, could be a slingshot, could be a spear, arms are arms. So whats next, registration and licensing of your favorite hunting or utility knife?

In the hands of legal law abiding Americans there can be no backtracking on this issue. Funny how none of the proposed legislation in the house applies to the government or employees of the government, guess they are above their own law, I smell a rat.

2rugers
February 4, 2009, 08:32 PM
Good read 405 and I agree wholeheartedly.

Bartholomew Roberts
February 4, 2009, 08:41 PM
CJW, you may be a bit misinformed. This was in no way a win for the 2nd amendment but a backdoor way to destroy it with this ruling. If you read the actual decision it says that yes indeed we do have the right,

Not to mention that the gold fringe on the flag means it was all an Admiralty court and therefore not binding on sovereign citizen types, right 405boy?

Just for my edification, would you point me towards any part of the Bill of Rights that is not regulated?

BUT it can also be changed by fiat law. Which in plain enlish means, they have the right, per this ruling to actually legally be able to change, ban or alter the 2nd if they follow protocol.

Protocol? Your own link that you provided for a definition of "fiat law" says essentially that there is no protocol. Fiat law is not any legal concept or procedure that can be followed to invalidate the Constitution. It is what the author was using to describe a situation where there are numerous laws on the books but nobody follows or respects them because the underlying culture does not accept them. That doesn't seem to be a good comparison to what you are trying to describe.

405boy
February 4, 2009, 10:03 PM
Bartholomew

Good catch on the gold fringe. Not to mention our court system is based on maritime law, the law of the sea. Look it up, but I am sure you already are familiar with this.

As far as pointing you to an area of BOR that are not regulated, sorry my friend, never claimed to be an attorney, but by your vernacular, I could assume you are an attorney.

405boy
February 4, 2009, 10:05 PM
Thanks 2rugers. By the way, good screen name, lol. :)

B. Lahey
February 4, 2009, 10:12 PM
Our courts are mostly based on the British system, exept we combined our courts of law and equity sooner and except for Louisiana (Napolionic Code, awesome).

Maritime law is a whole 'nuther bag of turnips. Being a seafaring nation we have always had use for it, but it was not a basis for our courts as far as I know (and I have read more of this stuff than is healthy).

Al Norris
February 4, 2009, 10:49 PM
Dont just sit back and ask for everyone else to do your research.
Let me introduce you to the art of debate.

You made a statement. You stated that "fiat law" could change the 2A right.

I asked you to explain what "fiat law" was. You replied with a link that doesn't explain what you think it means.

I asked you to cite the portion of Heller that backs up your argument. To this you respond with a link to a blog!! ??? Dated 3 months before the decision!

No, no, and no.

When you make a statement, as you did, and someone asks you to back it up, it is upon you to make good the argument. It is not mine, nor anyones elses job to make you argument for you.
Basically if you even start to regulate a right it is no longer a right but a privelage that can be changed, you simply open it up to debate and then you are screwed.
Sorry, but you are 100% wrong. All rights are regulated to one extent or another. The founders themselves never believed that rights are absolute, why is it that you (and several others) seem to think that all of a sudden they are?

And then there was the "gold fringe...." **sigh** ....405boy, don't answer any of the above, it was all rhetorical.

OK, everyone. Enough with the side bar. Let's get back to the OP.

B. Lahey
February 4, 2009, 10:50 PM
Mostly got that from the reading for my classes last year. We read British cases in Criminal Law (stranded sailors chose and shot a cabin boy in the head and ate him instead of drawing lots and eating him, this was deemed murderous), and Property Law (something about chasing foxes), and Contracts (something about a mill driveshaft, early consiquential damages case). All those cases are still cited, and I've had a few professors go on long winded rants about the history of the British and American legal traditions.

Didn't read any maritime law cases until this semester and have never heard it referenced as a source of American law.

Read a few French cases when I did a semester at Loyola New Orleans. Fun stuff.

405boy
February 5, 2009, 12:31 AM
Antipitas

Thanks so much for your kind statements, I will make sure to completely honor them and make sure too never ever again attempt to debate on any subject here. You are right I am wrong, now I must go and lick my wounds. Have a nice day.

Bartholomew Roberts
February 5, 2009, 09:35 AM
Didn't read any maritime law cases until this semester and have never heard it referenced as a source of American law.

That is because by and large it isn't. The "gold fringe on the flag" thing is a popular argument among certain tiny segments of the population who have very unique and unsupported beliefs regarding how our legal system works.

It is basically a case of the gullible being led by the legally savvy. Kind of like if I took a lighter to start a fire when you were using flint and stone and when you asked me how I did it, I explained that tiny fire spirits were trapped by my powerful magic and if you did what I told you, you could trap the tiny spirits too. You end up doing a lot of what I tell you to do; but strangely enough it never works as well for you as it does for me.

An excellent example is a recent tax-protestor case. The "sovereign citizen" in question was a real attorney and so knew the actual law. He was charged with several tax crimes. He managed to get the prosecutor to drop all of them but "Failure to file" and then successfully convinced the jury that he did not know he had to file taxes in that particular circumstance. From a legal maneuvering standpoint, very innovative... though of course, he still has to pay the taxes and will likely be disbarred. However, when he gets interviewed after the case, he claims that as a sovereign citizen he doesn't have to pay taxes and the jury couldn't find anything saying he had to pay taxes and basically completely misstates how he won his case. The people who follow this guy only know that he got off - they don't know or understand the legal maneuvering that got him off - and here he is telling them that what he is teaching them will help them avoid taxes too. It won't though - they will go to jail because they don't know crap about the real legal system. They will stand there flicking their thumb and wondering why the fire spirits don't appear and then they'll just go to jail (after this guy fleeces them like sheep).

2rugers
February 5, 2009, 03:57 PM
UHHHH... Wrong Antipitas.
The founders did indeed believe certain rights are absolute that is why they wrote them down in the first place.

Al Norris
February 5, 2009, 04:44 PM
Since we can't seem to stay on topic...

Closed.