Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: Just in case - Eric Holder

  1. #1

    Default Just in case - Eric Holder

    Just in case there is any doubt how much of an enemy we have in Eric Holder, here is a factual report for your perusal. The appointment of Mr. Holder by Obama should show us just how much of an enemy we have in this new administration, more then willing to disregard and diminish the Constitution as well as patently ignoring the Supreme Court decision in Heller vs. D.C. The fact that Holder thinks we should not be given the right of self-defense in our own homes is nothing short of irrational and smacks of "Big Brotherism. Think I might reread 1984.


    [David Kopel, November 20, 2008 at 7:41pm] Trackbacks
    Eric Holder on firearms policy:

    Earlier this year, Eric Holder--along with Janet Reno and several other former officials from the Clinton Department of Justice--co-signed an amicus brief in District of Columbia v. Heller. The brief was filed in support of DC's ban on all handguns, and ban on the use of any firearm for self-defense in the home. The brief argued that the Second Amendment is a "collective" right, not an individual one, and asserted that belief in the collective right had been the consistent policy of the U.S. Department of Justice since the FDR administration. A brief filed by some other former DOJ officials (including several Attorneys General, and Stuart Gerson, who was Acting Attorney General until Janet Reno was confirmed)took issue with the Reno-Holder brief's characterization of DOJ's viewpoint.

    But at the least, the Reno-Holder brief accurately expressed the position of the Department of Justice when Janet Reno was Attorney General and Eric Holder was Deputy Attorney General. At the oral argument before the Fifth Circuit in United States v. Emerson, the Assistant U.S. Attorney told the panel that the Second Amendment was no barrier to gun confiscation, not even of the confiscation of guns from on-duty National Guardsmen.

    As Deputy Attorney General, Holder was a strong supporter of restrictive gun control. He advocated federal licensing of handgun owners, a three day waiting period on handgun sales, rationing handgun sales to no more than one per month, banning possession of handguns and so-called "assault weapons" (cosmetically incorrect guns) by anyone under age of 21, a gun show restriction bill that would have given the federal government the power to shut down all gun shows, national gun registration, and mandatory prison sentences for trivial offenses (e.g., giving your son an heirloom handgun for Christmas, if he were two weeks shy of his 21st birthday). He also promoted the factoid that "Every day that goes by, about 12, 13 more children in this country die from gun violence"--a statistic is true only if one counts 18-year-old gangsters who shoot each other as "children."(Sources: Holder testimony before House Judiciary Committee, Subcommitee on Crime, May 27,1999; Holder Weekly Briefing, May 20, 2000. One of the bills that Holder endorsed is detailed in my 1999 Issue Paper "Unfair and Unconstitutional.")

    After 9/11, he penned a Washington Post op-ed, "Keeping Guns Away From Terrorists" arguing that a new law should give "the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms a record of every firearm sale." He also stated that prospective gun buyers should be checked against the secret "watch lists" compiled by various government entities. (In an Issue Paper on the watch list proposal, I quote a FBI spokesman stating that there is no cause to deny gun ownership to someone simply because she is on the FBI list.)

    After the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the D.C. handgun ban and self-defense ban were unconstitutional in 2007, Holder complained that the decision "opens the door to more people having more access to guns and putting guns on the streets."

    Holder played a key role in the gunpoint, night-time kidnapping of Elian Gonzalez. The pretext for the paramilitary invasion of the six-year-old's home was that someone in his family might have been licensed to carry a handgun under Florida law. Although a Pulitzer Prize-winning photo showed a federal agent dressed like a soldier and pointing a machine gun at the man who was holding the terrified child, Holder claimed that Gonzalez "was not taken at the point of a gun" and that the federal agents whom Holder had sent to capture Gonzalez had acted "very sensitively." If Mr. Holder believes that breaking down a door with a battering ram, pointing guns at children (not just Elian), and yelling "Get down, get down, we'll shoot" is example of acting "very sensitively," his judgment about the responsible use of firearms is not as acute as would be desirable for a cabinet officer who would be in charge of thousands and thousands of armed federal agents, many of them paramilitary agents with machine guns.
    (link)
    ARCraig (mail):

  2. #2
    Member mmusashi2k's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Location Location
    Posts
    263

    Default You mean this photo?

    We have a leg to stand on if we decide to use it. It looks a little like this and it makes the actions of the current administration a crime.


    CONSPIRACY AGAINST RIGHTS

    Summary:

    • Section 241 of Title 18 is the civil rights conspiracy statute. Section 241 makes it unlawful for two or more persons to agree together to injure, threaten, or intimidate a person in any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the Unites States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same). Unlike most conspiracy statutes, Section 241 does not require that one of the conspirators commit an overt act prior to the conspiracy becoming a crime.
      The offense is punishable by a range of imprisonment up to a life term or the death penalty, depending upon the circumstances of the crime, and the resulting injury, if any.

    TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 241


    • If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same;... They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.


  3. #3

    Default Doesn't pertain

    to law enforcement in the process of doing their job, right or wrong. Besides, it was a long time ago and wasn't the current administration. It does point out the character of Mr. Holder, his mentality.

  4. #4
    Member mmusashi2k's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Location Location
    Posts
    263

    Default Actually

    My comment did not pertain to law enforcement but to our elected officials who are conspiring to infringe on our rights. The photo merely verifies what you stated, that the claims that Elian was in fact taken at gunpoint. The current administration is acting fast and are far more powerful than the one Eric Holder previously belonged to. The AWB was already passed once and the new proposed one is to be permanent.

  5. #5
    Member 2dawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    642

    Default Hmmm

    I wonder who took that photo...must have been a family member. I'd bet dog turds to diamonds that in this day and age that camera would of been confiscated...as evidence.

  6. #6
    Member tccak71's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    2,175

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mmusashi2k View Post
    The AWB was already passed once and the new proposed one is to be permanent.
    Couldn't a new administration and Congress undo the AWB down the road? I don't want it to come to that, but there must be some way to undo A LOT of what this administration and Congress is going to do.

    Tim

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    505

    Default Maybe, but backtracking and redoing is not advancing

    Quote Originally Posted by tccak71 View Post
    Couldn't a new administration and Congress undo the AWB down the road? I don't want it to come to that, but there must be some way to undo A LOT of what this administration and Congress is going to do.

    Tim
    Tim,

    Yes, there is, but to repeal a law is a lot harder than letting one expire or preventing it from being passed in the first place.

    I would much rather spend my political effort in 8 years working to get a national right to carry "Shall Issue" permit, or better yet, a national right to carry without a permit authorized than spend my efforts trying to undo legal/political/social losses.

    Even though action now will be frustrating and a seemingly fruitless defensive action, keeping the anti-gun hoplophobes from making advances IS worthwhile.

    Lost Sheep

  8. #8
    Member JOAT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Soldotna, ALASKA since '78
    Posts
    3,720

    Default No

    Couldn't a new administration and Congress undo the AWB down the road?
    Like we've done with such gems as the 1934 National Firearms Act?

    No, laws just don't get "repealed", even though technically it is possible, once a law is twice passed and signed, it's there forever (unless a sunset is built in, as was the case with the AWB).
    Winter is Coming...

    Go GeocacheAlaska!

  9. #9

    Default It may already be too late

    I just read the HR45 2009 bill. I'm trying to stay calm but it isn't easy. It immediately made me think of Germany just prior to WWII. This will give one person, that ********* Holder, full power to, really, do whatever he wants to prevent private ownership of firearms. It even stipulates that anyone holding one of their magical gun licenses, if you're lucky enough to get one, will have to update their private address if they move. It's like in Europe when the public has to show their papers when moving around the country.
    The same old tired excuse that making it more difficult or impossible for law-abiding citizens to own guns will save lives. Man, this angers me. If ever there was an unamerican politico, it is Holder, yes, and the man who appointed him, mainly, in my belief, to finally end private gun ownership. We are in a very serious pivotal time now. Our actions and the actions of those in government who are still for the people will determine what this country becomes. I am sure that, among other things, the UN Global Disarmament Treaty will be ratified with the help of our government officials. We all know what it will be like without the 2nd.
    I am a tough cranky old fart, but this has me scared, scared for the country. I can see us being diminished in power and sovereignty within 8 years. I have contacted NRA ILA in the hopes they can help me in setting up a petition drive, but I am starting to think it is too late.
    Hey Logman, split me a cord too, eh? It's going to get real cold around here.

    I went to a website recently, texasfred.org. great site, for straight talk. can you spell Impeach? My opinions may not reflect the opinions of the operators of this website.

  10. #10

    Default Oops

    That should have been texasfred.net, not .org

  11. #11
    Member tccak71's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    2,175

    Default Scary stuff MB, what about the "S" word?

    What about secession? If they do sign the global disarmament treaty and take a run at private ownership, isn't it our obligation to pull out of the union? I'm sure other states (in the west, NOT WEST COAST, and the south) may be able to go along with it. We're talking serious business if it comes to a total loss of ownership. I don't see how Obammy can do it in view of Heller.

    Can you post a link to HR45? I'd like to see it.

    Thanks,

    Tim

  12. #12

    Default Together, not apart

    I personally would rather keep us together, not break down our Republic. The last thing we need is to become even more factionalized when our enemies are just waiting. Somehow, we've got to try and keep the Constitution alive and protected. How Obama can say out of one side of his mouth that he will support and protect the Constitution and then pull this is just amazing, even for a Chi town politician.
    I do know that if enough of us, meaning millions, say we will not recognize their attempts to deny us our Constitutional rights, it will have an effect. If not, then we know we are in it deep.

  13. #13
    Member mmusashi2k's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Location Location
    Posts
    263

    Default H.r. 45

    You can look at the online document at the Library of Congress website. When I email the url it merely takes you to the Library of Congress website and not to the actual bill. You'll have to do a search from there.

  14. #14

    Default

    Go to this link, it's a good one to understand the extremeness of this Act.

    http://www.guncontrolkills.com/351/g...-registration/

  15. #15
    Member tccak71's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    2,175

    Default

    Thanks for the link MB.

    Joat, good point about the '34 firearms act.

    Tim

  16. #16

    Default Good website

    I hope more people check it out. I've reread HR45. It is really a blitzkreig if you realize how much is covered and the open end power it gives the AG. I think one of the main things in it is how difficult and complicated the process they describe really is. They probably figure that a lot of people won't want to go through it and give out all that private information. That, combined with the prohibition of private selling and buying would summarily crush people's ability to make lawful gun purchases or sales. So, the only people who would be affected would be law-abiding people. These politicos would be so ridiculous if they weren't so dangerous.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •