Eric Holder as Attn Gen. Criminalize 2nd First Step.


Canis-Lupus

New member
So much for "I support the Second Amendment," and so much for the notion of "change." :nono:
Media reports say President-elect Barack Obama has selected Eric Holder as his Attorney General, and that Holder may already have accepted the offer. Holder, as Deputy Attorney General under Janet Reno during the Clinton Administration, said that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual right, but instead protects the right to have a firearm when serving with a militia. After leaving office, Holder stuck to that assertion when he signed Janet Reno's brief to the Supreme Court in the Heller case, which stated, "The Second Amendment does not protect firearms possession or use that is unrelated to participation in a well-regulated militia." :confused: Guess it's time to form a well-regulated militia, where do we sign-up?
And thus it begins,

Canis-Lupus
 

DrDavidM

New member
As is everything that is happening in this administration, this is scary. Hopefully, the Heller decision will help save our rights.
 

NDS

New member
The only way that Heller will help us is for us to be aggressively proactive in protecting our rights. It's not enough to just join NRA or CCRKBA or GOA or your state organization. We must each spend time (actual physical presence--not just toss a few dollars) working for our rights. For at least the next 2 years, we dare not sit and let someone else take care of it.


If we sit and whine, gun bans and other laws the BHO administration will support MAY be found to be contrary to the Constitution by the SCOTUS; the process WILL take years.
 
We must stay informed and aware of possible attacks on the 2A. Watch for bills being introduced, especially as attached bills, and immediately start writing our reps. The SCOTUS decision was a historic win but left openings for an AWB. Look at the following excerpt:

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues.

This statement in itself allows for a wide ranging ban on many types of firearms. It would allow Obama to accomplish something he has stated he supports, a complete ban on ALL semi-automatic weapons. Stay aware, stay informed, stay vigilant.
 

pistol pete

New member
Holder would like to disarm all americans. This way, as he releases more and more terrorists, they will be free to do what they want.
The whole idea of disarming Americans is so that the liberal left can set free all the criminals and terrorists.
 

surfcc

New member
Hold(er) onto your guns!

As many of us predicted, Obama has taken the first step toward chipping away at our 2nd Ammendment rights with the nomination of a very ANTI-GUN Attorney Gen, Eric Holder. Link Removed

Brace yourselves for a long fight ahead......go out and buy what you can now! High cap mags could go by the wayside......forget about ANYTHING with a pistol grip.

Surfcc
 

tattedupboy

Thank God I'm alive!
Seems to me like this guy doesn't know the meaning of the term "militia," at least the way the writers of the Second Amendment understood it. It seems to me that a little history lesson is in order.
 

HK4U

New member
Seems to me like this guy doesn't know the meaning of the term "militia," at least the way the writers of the Second Amendment understood it. It seems to me that a little history lesson is in order.

I am sure he knows. I don't think it is a lack of knowledge on his part but rather like with most of them the truth does not fit his agenda.
 

boris

New member
oh. i thought he had too

many things to fix to be concerned with our guns..BLOOD SHOOTING FROM MY EYES!!!! BETTER GET READY. THINGS ARE ABOUT TO GO SOUTH AND GET UUUGGGGLLLLYYYYY.:hang3:
 

magicman007

New member
There IS an opening within Heller to sue for unconstitutionality, and AWB ban (handgun or otherwise). In the majority opinion, SCOTUS said the Second Amendment "does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes." This would mean that the semi automatic weapons currently in use by citizens in this country can not be banned. They are in common use and could be used for duty in a militia.
 
Glad I didn't buy a Sig Mosquito. Unless we're fending off an attack from a large number of vermon, I can't see how this would fit in to "militia use". :lol: OTOH, the larger calibers of Sig as well as the .380 and up calibers would be excellent choices for use when serving in the unorganized militia.



gf
 

gdcleanfun

Banned
NRA email today...

From today's NRA email:

***

Obama Selects Janet Reno's Anti-Gun Point Man As Next Attorney General

Friday, November 21, 2008


So much for "I support the Second Amendment," and so much for the notion of "change."

Media reports say President-elect Barack Obama has selected Eric Holder as his Attorney General, and that Holder may already have accepted the offer. Holder, as Deputy Attorney General under Janet Reno during the Clinton Administration, said that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual right, but instead protects the right to have a firearm when serving with a militia. After leaving office, Holder stuck to that assertion when he signed Janet Reno's brief to the Supreme Court in the Heller case, which stated, "The Second Amendment does not protect firearms possession or use that is unrelated to participation in a well-regulated militia."

At the Justice Department, Holder advocated a waiting period, limiting gun purchases to one per month, and so-called "gun show loophole" legislation--the fine print of which would have driven gun shows out of business. Holder made it clear that he, Clinton, and Reno were more interested in stopping gun sales than in regulating them. When ABC's George Will asked him about guns being used for self-defense more often than to commit crime, and Right-to-Carry states having lower crime rates than other states, Holder dismissed the facts that Mr. Will raised, with the flippant statement, "I'm not sure that we need more than the 200 million or so guns that we have on the streets."

In the same interview, Holder claimed that gun control was responsible for crime declining in the 1990s, when criminologists, law enforcement professionals, and sociologists attributed the trend to other factors entirely. We wonder what Holder would say today, since the federal ban on "assault weapons" and standard-equipment magazines holding more than 10 rounds has expired, the number of privately owned guns has risen by 35-40 million, and yet, murder and total violent crime have declined even more than before.

After leaving the Justice Department, Holder kept his anti-gun bona fides up-to-date by writing a column in the Washington Post advocating a law that would ban any gun sale without a background check--even between family members and close friends--and also "give the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms a record of every firearm sale." Holder claimed--since his column appeared just a month after the September 11, 2001 attacks--that his national gun registration scheme would help protect us from terrorists, when, in reality, this was just political opportunism at its worst.
Obama's selection of a Clinton Administration veteran with an anti-gun record as long as his own, signals that the new president is just as committed to his promise of respecting the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, as he is to his promise of change: "Yes We Can" get elected by lying to the American people.



Copyright 2008, National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action.
This may be reproduced. It may not be reproduced for commercial purposes.
Contact Us | Privacy & Security PolicyLink Removed
 

gdcleanfun

Banned
Y'know, I don't mind a background check. I know some who mind it. That's okay. I have nothing to hide. Never have. Others who mind it probably don't have anything to hide, either. It doesn't matter to the government if I/you/we/they have anything to hide. Why, then, does the government NEED TO KNOW that I/you/we/they have nothing to hide? Power. That's all, just power. Plain and simple, power. Well, maybe a little ignorance thrown in. Okay, lots of ignorance, and power! Power over civilians. However, I'm on the fence on this one because criminals have things to hide. Each time I purchase a firearm I'm background-checked. But, I still pass. When a criminal subjects him/herself to a background check they subject themselves to being "outed" and then "inn'ed" at the local metal-bar hotel. I say, "Let the background checks continue." Power over criminals is more powerful than power over me. Just my opinion. I am sure it's probably not a popular one.
 

toreskha

Titles are un-American.
Might as well start practicing.

moscowG_468x317.jpg
 

Bohemian

New member
The recent supreme court decision clearly stated that a ban of a entire class of firearms was unconstitutional, as was the rendering of a firearm useless by forcing it to be disassembled or locked...

BUT The Heller decision will not be worth the paper it is written on; if either Obama bans by executive order which many think he will and or congress legislates a gun ban...

The Supreme court can not overrule the executive or legislative branch...
Or the combination of the two...

Just what part of "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" do these windbags not understand?
Nowhere in the constitution does it give exception to inalienable rights being able to be INFRINGED, BANNED ALL OR IN PART, CONDITIONALLY CONSTRAINED, OR OTHER WISE LIMITED etc...

As much as they would like to convince us otherwise, you just can not read anything else into "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"!!!

The founding fathers clearly stated and intended that the purpose of the Second Amendment was that every citizen should be allowed to be armed in equal or greater proportion to any threat foreign or domestic and trained to use said arms from as early an age as possible...

AND that without the Second Amendment the entire Constitution is effectively rendered useless and meaningless...

Further, that the Second Amendment is the most effective deterrent to Tyranny from our own Government...

Read the unabridged second amendment...
Link Removed
 

HK4U

New member
The Obama presidency will be a nightmare for us. Not only are our 2nd Amendment rights in grave danger but so are all of our rights. We can expect an all out assault on the constitution.
 

magicman007

New member
The recent supreme court decision clearly stated that a ban of a entire class of firearms was unconstitutional, as was the rendering of a firearm useless by forcing it to be disassembled or locked...

BUT The Heller decision will not be worth the paper it is written on; if either Obama bans by executive order which many think he will and or congress legislates a gun ban...

The Supreme court can not overrule the executive or legislative branch...
Or the combination of the two...

I have to disagree with this statement. That's the whole reason the SCUTUS was set up the way it is. They most certainly can override congress AND the Pres. They have in the past and I'm sure they will in the future. Whether it's on this issue or not remains to be seen. Executive orders can be overridden by both/either Congress and the SCOTUS. It's called a check and balance system so that no one branch has absolute power. Now, they can work in concert with each other to screw us on this. But they can fight against each other over it too. Federal laws can, have been and will continue to be ruled unconstitutional, and so can executive orders. There is no absolute with presidential power. The office can and has been reigned in by either of the other branches. The Heller decision is one way this can be done. Precedent has been set now and will be hard to overturn in the courts. This was not a regional or district decision that does not have to be followed by other districts. It was a decision made covering the entire US. Every court district has to follow it, or face further review by higher courts.
Don't get me wrong. Heller is no panacea for our 2A rights. But it IS one big feather in our cap to use in the fight. This will be a long fight over the next four years minimum. We need to use every means available to keep the pressure on all three branches of government to uphold 2A and not let them errode it any further. IF we keep up the fight at every turn and oppose any and all attempts to limit 2A, we CAN win. But we have to be vigilant. Remember, freedom is not free.
 

Bohemian

New member
I have to disagree with this statement. That's the whole reason the SCUTUS was set up the way it is. They most certainly can override congress AND the Pres. They have in the past and I'm sure they will in the future. Whether it's on this issue or not remains to be seen. Executive orders can be overridden by both/either Congress and the SCOTUS. It's called a check and balance system so that no one branch has absolute power. Now, they can work in concert with each other to screw us on this. But they can fight against each other over it too. Federal laws can, have been and will continue to be ruled unconstitutional, and so can executive orders. There is no absolute with presidential power. The office can and has been reigned in by either of the other branches. The Heller decision is one way this can be done. Precedent has been set now and will be hard to overturn in the courts. This was not a regional or district decision that does not have to be followed by other districts. It was a decision made covering the entire US. Every court district has to follow it, or face further review by higher courts.
Don't get me wrong. Heller is no panacea for our 2A rights. But it IS one big feather in our cap to use in the fight. This will be a long fight over the next four years minimum. We need to use every means available to keep the pressure on all three branches of government to uphold 2A and not let them errode it any further. IF we keep up the fight at every turn and oppose any and all attempts to limit 2A, we CAN win. But we have to be vigilant. Remember, freedom is not free.

I will have to agree to disagree...

In every case I have found where SCOTUS was asked to over rule congress or the executive branch, they stated that it was not their position to overrule the decisions of the duly elected members of the legislative and executive branches of the government...

Congress can bring articles of impeachment against the President if he has commited a criminal act as a point of law...

Historically the cases the Supreme Court have heard and ruled on are those that a state, city or other municipality has ruled on, that was deemed constitutional...

The Legislative and Executive branches decide what actually gets imposed on us; if we let them...

Take Prohibition for instance...

A RADICAL CONGRESS AND PRESIDENT BROUGHT ABOUT THE RATIFICATION OF THE CONSTITUTION FOR THE GOOD OF THE PEOPLE...
(sound familiar?)

WHEN CHALLENGED AND TAKEN TO THE SUPREME COURT, THEY WOULD NOT EVEN HEAR IT...

IT TOOK ANOTHER PRESIDENT AND CONGRESS TO RE-RATIFY THE CONSTITUTION TO END THAT B.S...

OR HOW ABOUT THE 16TH AMENDMENT (THE FRICKING IRS/BATFE!) CONGRESS RE-WROTE THE CONSTITUTION WITHOUT A RATIFICATION BY THE STATES!
To date, the Supreme Court has refused to hear any case challenging this clearly unconstitional amendment...

LET ME REPEAT IT; THE 16TH AMENDMENT WAS NEVER CONSTITUTIONALLY RATIFIED!
Where are the checks and balances you speak of?
Out the fricking window!
HOW SOME STATES DID NOT LEGALLY RATIFY THE 16TH AMENDMENT

There have been two u.s. supreme court rulings that have found that the FEDERAL full-auto ban was unconstitutional as are any bans of a entire class of firearm...

Changed NOTHING!...

Until a sitting Congress writes a new piece of legislation and or a sitting President overturns it; IT STANDS!

The Heller decision was based on a ban put in place by a NON-FEDERAL ENITY...

When Gun Ban Obama and Company show up for work on Black Tuesday January 20th, 2009, the bans will be at the FEDERAL LEVEL BY A FEDERAL ENTITY FULLY SUPPORTED BY THE MAJORITY OF THE HOUSE AND SENATE (LEGISLATIVE BRANCH/Shared by the Vice President, who is also the President of the Senate) and the EXECUTIVE BRANCH...

SLICK-WILIE CLINTONS' AWB BAN (Written by Vice President Elect Joe Biden) LASTED TEN YEARS, and the Supreme Court Refused to hear every single challenge...

Granted the liberal left leaning SCOTUS did grant habeas corpus to Terrorists in Guantánamo effectively overturning a "W" Executive order...

But that was clearly not the historically accepted practice of SCOTUS to date...

I personally don't believe those guys have any rights any where; their own country does not want them and most of those we have released have shown back up on the battlefield and killed my fellow Marines...

I digress...

Like the people of England, Australia and Canada, et.al.

We will be disarmed if we DO NOTHING!

The government only has the power that the people give it...

If we do nothing, we can only say we did nothing...
 
Last edited:

johnsteele

New member
I will have to agree to disagree...

In every case I have found where SCOTUS was asked to over rule congress or the executive branch, they stated that it was not their position to overrule the decisions of the duly elected members of the legislative and executive branches of the government...

Congress can bring articles of impeachment against the President if he has commited a criminal act as a point of law...

Historically the cases the Supreme Court have heard and ruled on are those that a state, city or other municipality has ruled on, that was deemed constitutional...

The Legislative and Executive branches decide what actually gets imposed on us; if we let them...

Take Prohibition for instance...

A RADICAL CONGRESS AND PRESIDENT BROUGHT ABOUT THE RATIFICATION OF THE CONSTITUTION FOR THE GOOD OF THE PEOPLE...
(sound familiar?)

WHEN CHALLENGED AND TAKEN TO THE SUPREME COURT, THEY WOULD NOT EVEN HEAR IT...

IT TOOK ANOTHER PRESIDENT AND CONGRESS TO RE-RATIFY THE CONSTITUTION TO END THAT B.S...

OR HOW ABOUT THE 16TH AMENDMENT (THE FRICKING IRS/BATFE!) CONGRESS RE-WROTE THE CONSTITUTION WITHOUT A RATIFICATION BY THE STATES!
To date, the Supreme Court has refused to hear any case challenging this clearly unconstitional amendment...

LET ME REPEAT IT; THE 16TH AMENDMENT WAS NEVER CONSTITUTIONALLY RATIFIED!
Where are the checks and balances you speak of?
Out the fricking window!
HOW SOME STATES DID NOT LEGALLY RATIFY THE 16TH AMENDMENT

There have been two u.s. supreme court rulings that have found that the FEDERAL full-auto ban was unconstitutional as are any bans of a entire class of firearm...

Changed NOTHING!...

Until a sitting Congress writes a new piece of legislation and or a sitting President overturns it; IT STANDS!

The Heller decision was based on a ban put in place by a NON-FEDERAL ENITY...

When Gun Ban Obama and Company show up for work on Black Tuesday January 20th, 2009, the bans will be at the FEDERAL LEVEL BY A FEDERAL ENTITY FULLY SUPPORTED BY THE MAJORITY OF THE HOUSE AND SENATE (LEGISLATIVE BRANCH/Shared by the Vice President, who is also the President of the Senate) and the EXECUTIVE BRANCH...

SLICK-WILIE CLINTONS' AWB BAN (Written by Vice President Elect Joe Biden) LASTED TEN YEARS, and the Supreme Court Refused to hear every single challenge...

Granted the liberal left leaning SCOTUS did grant habeas corpus to Terrorists in Guantánamo effectively overturning a "W" Executive order...

But that was clearly not the historically accepted practice of SCOTUS to date...

I personally don't believe those guys have any rights any where; their own country does not want them and most of those we have released have shown back up on the battlefield and killed my fellow Marines...

I digress...

Like the people of England, Australia and Canada, et.al.

We will be disarmed if we DO NOTHING!

The government only has the power that the people give it...

If we do nothing, we can only say we did nothing...
With all due respect, you are simply wrong. The Court has often overruled both of the other branches when theiir legislation or actions was unconstiutional. One that comes quickly to mind had to do with the line-item veto. Congress passed legislation granting the President a line-item veto. This was challenged to the Supreme Court which struck it down.

NO branch of our government is currently all-powerfull. We are in grave danger in the next few years as the Democrats have control of the Whitehouse AND the Congress. Obama WILL get to appoint everal justices to the Court and this will be a VERY VERY bad confluence of events. We MUST regain control of the House and the Senate in 2010 or Obama will have free reign to remake the nation as he sees fit.
 

New Threads

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
49,340
Messages
622,580
Members
74,169
Latest member
gamike
Top