The Hill: Holder dials back his commitment to pushing ban on assault weapons

[aikoaiko]

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/67833-holder-dials-back-commitment-to-assault-weapons-ban

Holder dials back his commitment to pushing ban on assault weapons
By Sam Youngman - 11/15/09 03:47 PM ET

Attorney General Eric Holder is retreating on his commitment to pursue a controversial gun-control measure.

Holder’s statements, recently delivered to senators in writing, clearly indicate the Obama administration is in no rush to reinstate the assault weapons ban, which expired in 2004.

In response to written questions from Senate Judiciary Committee members, Holder adopted a much different tone on the ban than he did in February, when he said, “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.”

.
.
.

Regarding the administration’s next step, Holder stated, "The department is currently reviewing existing gun laws to determine how best to combat gun violence and keep guns out of the hands of criminals and others prohibited from possessing them."

That's much better than his last insert-foot-in-mouth debacle, but as reported this letter doesn't really seem to dialing back much.

Does anyone know where to access the entire Holder letter?

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[proteus_lives]

2. He'd better.

Any dumbass anti-gun moves are just going to be ammo for the repugs in '10 and '12.

[katandmoon]

3. Bending over for the NRA -- shocker

[spin]

4. Nope, The Democratic leadership just looked at gun and ammo sales...

since Obama was elected and made a very wise decision to not push for your extremely liberal agenda with draconian gun laws. Perhaps someone at the higher echelons suddenly realized that plenty of gun owners are Democrats and plenty of the recent converts to the Democratic Party are gun owners.

So rather than push for "feel good" gun laws like a reinstatement of the failed assault weapons ban, they now are "reviewing existing gun laws to determine how best to combat gun violence and keep guns out of the hands of criminals and others prohibited from possessing them."

Sounds a lot smarter than attempting to keep guns out of the hands of honest, sane and responsible citizens.

Just because Obama isn't kissing extremely liberal ass doesn't mean that he is kissing NRA ass.

[TheWraith]

5. I take issue with your characterization.

"very wise decision to not push for your extremely liberal agenda with draconian gun laws."

The assumption that "very liberal agenda" and "draconian gun laws" go together is a false one.

[krispos42]

6. They do in contemporary American politics

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x136200


George Lakoff says it's an outgrowth of the "nurturing parent" mentality of liberals, which is why I think many liberals what were outraged at restrictions and outright violations of other Constitutional rights because somebody in authority deemed it "in the interest of public safety" simply do not have any problem with gutting the 2nd Amendment "in the interest of public safety".

[benEzra]

9. I would point out that most of the current zealots on the issue are Third Way communitarians

and not liberal. Dianne Feinstein is not a liberal, nor is Charles Schumer or Michael Bloomberg, William J. Bennett, Paul Helmke, Josh Sugarmann, or John Rosenthal. They are more in the mold of Amitai Etzioni than traditional liberalism. Likewise, most of the public-health nazis who believe that the mantras of "safety" and "health" trump the empowerment of the individual and self-determination are likewise not liberals but communitarians.

There are a few notable exceptions, but most of the anti-gun-owner jihad in the '90s to the present came from authoritarian "centrists".

[krispos42]

11. Good points

The Republicans, though, have gone so far to the right that the "centrists" look about as indistinguishable as the actual "liberals". My supervisor says Obama is a Marxist, for example, because the people that he listens to on the radio are screaming about it.


Of course, I'm not sure if he's serious or just yanking my chain... but the RW definition of "Marxism" is awfully broad and not that well defined.

[TheWraith]

31. Add to that Carolyn McCarthy

One of the loudest voices in the House for gun control is a former Republican and supporter of the Iraq War clear through 2006. Decidedly not a liberal.

[spin]

13. It's a matter of defintion...

I consider myself a liberal, I also consider myself progressive. I'm sure many, especially those who want to ban and confiscate guns would define me as a right wing conservative gun nut.

I also consider the Right to Keep and Bear Arms a liberal and progressive idea.

In the description below, my views would fall the into the majority view with one exception, stricter gun control.

Social liberals, also referred to as progressives or modern liberals, constitute roughly half of the Democratic voter base. Liberals thereby form the largest united typological demographic within the Democratic base. According to the 2008 exit poll results, liberals constituted 22% of the electorate, and 89% of American liberals favored the candidate of the Democratic Party.<16> White collar college-educated professionals were mostly Republican until the 1950s; they now compose perhaps the most vital component of the Democratic Party.<17> A large majority of liberals favor universal health care, with many supporting a single-payer system.A majority also favor diplomacy over military action, stem cell research, the legalization of same-sex marriage, secular government, stricter gun control, and environmental protection laws as well as the preservation of abortion rights. Immigration and cultural diversity is deemed positive; liberals favor cultural pluralism, a system in which immigrants retain their native culture in addition to adopting their new culture. They tend to be divided on free trade agreements and organizations such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Most liberals oppose increased military spending and the display of the Ten Commandments in public buildings.<18>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_%28United_States%29#Liberals

Perhaps I should come up with a better term for those liberal Democrats who favor gun control. I have been using "very liberal" or "extremely liberal" as a description. I can think of some terms that I could use but, to say the least, they would be insulting and extremely offensive.

Any suggestions?

[rrneck]

18. You're right.

I think the terms refer to rates of cultural change. All cultures change in response to what happens around and within them. Those who want a "liberal amount" of change want a lot of it. Those who would prefer a "conservative amount" of it would like change to be reduced.

If someone has a secure financial future, a lot of property to protect, and a lot of political contacts established you don't want anybody messing with the deal you've got. You're a conservative.

If, on the other hand, they are financially, racially, or sexually discriminated against they want things to change. That makes them a liberal. The more change they want, the more liberal they are.

Both impulses can go too far. If you want not only to slow change but to turn back the cultural clock to some previous time before all that change screwed up your culture, you're probably a fascist and you probably don't even know it. If you are clamoring for revolution that rips apart the established order and rebuilds it from scratch, that makes you a communist comrade. Both extremes seem to have the same result. And of course the ideal rate of change for a culture is flexible as well. Given our current environmental, energy, and economic problems we may not be able to change as fast as we need to anyway.

Funneling power to as many people as possible is considered a pretty liberal (or progressive) thing to do because more voices result in more change. Moldy monarchies tend to be pretty authoritarian. When we allow power of any kind to be distributed across a broad cross section of the population those to whom it has been delegated will exercise it.

That's what makes firearms ownership such a liberal trend (if my reasoning is correct). More people are acquiring power of the most basic sort and the laws regarding personal carry are an effort to establish standards of conduct and training in the exercise of that power. It's also why calls for bans with intrusive and oppressive regulation sound so conservative and authoritarian.

And when someone pulls a trigger either in offense or defense? At that moment they're an anarchist.

edited for clarity. I don't know if it worked.

[spin]

19. Excellent post. Will have to bookmark it. Thanks (n/t)

[JoeyT]

7. Taking a bit of issue here too.

I'm about as liberal as it's humanly possible to be, and I own guns.
I also oppose silly feel-good legislation that doesn't actually *do* anything, which is exactly what assault weapon bans are.

I think part of the problem is the anti-gun laws are crafted by anti-gun people. People that don't actually know guns well enough to know what a ban will actually encompass. So you end up with assault weapon bans that only ban potential modifications that don't actually make a gun more deadly. They just ban whatever gun the person saw in a movie and thought looked too dangerous to have. When the new Star Wars movies came out I fully expected a proposed ban on blaster rifles and lightsabers. We must stop Jedi on Jedi crime!

If people were serious about getting the seriously dangerous stuff off the streets, they could do a lot worse than asking people that actually know guns. We'd tell them something along the lines of "The cheap throwaway guns are your man every time." The guns that are cheap enough to buy, shoot someone, and throw in the river. Not the impressive looking things. The crappy potmetal/plastic/low grade steel guns that no amount of fiddling with will prevent them from jamming on the third shot, but it doesn't matter because they cost a hundred bucks, anyone can get one, and they're only going to use it once anyway.

[oneshooter]

10. So what you are saying is that only the well to do

should be able to afford a firearm. That the working poor are to be defenseless? The "The crappy potmetal/plastic/low grade steel guns that no amount of fiddling with will prevent them from jamming on the third shot, but it doesn't matter because they cost a hundred bucks," are all they can afford. And they are the ones that can not afford to move out of the high crime areas. So you would tell them that their safety does not matter, because you can not afford to protect yourself, tough luck.

Oneshooter
Livin in Texas

PS I own one of those plastic and steel guns, a HP 995 carbine. Shoots evey time, feeds anything without a bobble and is accurate to 50-75yds.

[JoeyT]

15. Good point.

I didn't think of it that way.
I was referring more to the guns that start cheap and change hands over and over and over. I just did a really crappy job of saying it.

[taurus145]

26. I've got the 9mm

Now I'm waiting for the .45 acp version to come out.

My son got the .40. I'm not a .40 handgun owner, so I passed that one by.

You can't beat 'em for the price.

[eqfan592]

35. I also have an HP 995 carbine!

I love the thing :D However, my wife now wants a pistol in .40 S&W (a Sigma, as it fits her hands perfectly). I was thinking about selling the 9mm and using it to get a .40 S&W version. Knowing me, though, I'll probably just pick up a .40 cal and keep the 9mm as well. :P

[benEzra]

14. To my knowledge, there are no such guns on the U.S. market.

The crappy potmetal/plastic/low grade steel guns that no amount of fiddling with will prevent them from jamming on the third shot, but it doesn't matter because they cost a hundred bucks, anyone can get one, and they're only going to use it once anyway.

To my knowledge, there are no such guns on the U.S. market. My wife owned a Phoenix Arms Raven .25ACP once, back before she could afford a Glock. It was shot plenty, never jammed once, and was pretty accurate (a fixed barrel, teeny sights, and a single-action trigger will do that). I think she paid $79 for it new, which was literally all she could afford.

What it was, compared to something like a Beretta Jetfire or Bobcat in the same caliber, was clunky and HEAVY. The inexpensive cast-slide pistols typically accomodate lower-grade metals by being overbuilt for the caliber. Compare a Jennings 9mm to a Glock 26 9mm (my wife's current pistol), and you'll see what I mean.

Many proposed bans on "junk guns" are either a ban on small guns, or guns that are passable quality but on the lower end of the price scale. Some are both.

[JoeyT]

16. Fair enough.

I was pretty tired when I wrote that and wasn't thinking or articulating very clearly.
I was trying to refer to the low quality guns that are sold from person to person multiple times, just did a really bad job of saying it.

[benEzra]

17. My wife owned the Raven for years.

We finally sold it to a Federal firearms license holder.

Would a Phoenix or Jennings pistol be my first choice as a defensive firearm? No; they are heavy for their caliber, low capacity for their size, and arguably less tolerant of neglect than more expensive guns. Would I buy one if I could not have afforded a lighter, smaller, higher-capacity firearm? Definitely.

[gorfle]

21. Note the HiPoint C9

The HiPoint C9 is a quality firearm that can be had retail for about $100.

[taurus145]

27. They're ugly a sin, but

they're shooters. And the lifetime warranty, uh, FOREVER warranty is the best around.

[gorfle]

29. Gun Tests rated them well also.

I like the C9 because it puts a reliable firearm within the financial reach of nearly anyone.

[taurus145]

34. I'm a fan of bigger is better

I like the .45 best, .40 next.


My wife shoots a 9mm because of her smaller hands.

BTW Excellent entry price on a 30-30, or about any other caliber you want, is the NEF Handi Rifle. I've got six and all are tack drivers. Single shot, easy, simple operation. Usually around $225 (around here).

[taurus145]

8. Let me see

Firearms sales, ammunition sales, and CCW permit applications are at an all-time high.

People who have never owned a gun are buying them. Why? Because there are many Dems who believe that all civilian gun ownership should either be strictly regulated, permitted, and/or licensed or eliminated altogether.

A fine corollary is Prohibition. According to the historical accounts, possibly as many as several million Americans took up going to speakeasys simply because alcohol was outlawed. Civil disobedience and protest if you will.

We can't afford to be selective about supporting only those rights we like. They're all equal and equally important.

[aikoaiko]

12. Obama and Holder are NOT concerned about the NRA -- its the voters

The NRA was against Obama getting elected and the NRA lost. The Obama administration was and is not afraid of the NRA.

The huge increase in sales in guns and ammo and concealed carry permits is what worried them. It was a real life demonstration of how committed people are to retaining their 2nd Amendment rights in the face of an adminstration that campaigned on banning the purchase of new firearms (popular rifles, pistols, and shotguns) in certain popular configurations.

The NRA isn't making the administration think twice -- its the voters.

[TheWraith]

There are 4 million NRA members, and 80-100 million gun owners.

To assume that the NRA necessarily represents gun owners is like saying that the Dover Rotary Club represents the entire State of Delaware.

[aikoaiko]

33. I agree and I am a NRA member.

:)

[gorfle]

20. Shocker indeed!

I'm glad to pay the NRA my dues to continue to give Holder "The Shocker".

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

24. Bigger shocker a drive by posting from you.

[paulsby]

25. correction: bending over for the constitution

darn that pesky constitution!

[gorfle]

22. Not much?

That's much better than his last insert-foot-in-mouth debacle, but as reported this letter doesn't really seem to dialing back much.

Not much? Are you kidding? We went from floating a new AWB to "let's review our existing gun laws".

The NRA could have written his letter. That's what they've said for years - enforce the existing laws!

[aikoaiko]

23. I want to be optimistic, but there is nothing inconsistent with "reviewing current laws" and

deciding after that review of existing laws to work toward reauthorizing the AWB.

I'd like to see the whole letter before passing judgment.

When I saw the headline, I expected something a little more along the lines of "we have no longer wish to pursue the AWB". That would be dialing it back.

But maybe you're right -- I should be more appreciative.

[gorfle]

30. No, you're right.

You're right - it is just words, and they don't rule out a new AWB after "review of the existing laws".

But I think this is just politics. They can't say they are ruling out a new AWB because that would make their anti-firearm allies go ape-shit.

I'm still very optimistic about the stance though.

[taurus145]

28. The "new and improved" AWB

HR 1022 did absolutely nothing to ban so-called assault weapons. It was about as useless as the one that died with its sunset clause in 2004.

Good riddance to both.

[DU GrovelBot]

32. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our fourth quarter 2009 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!