Thursday, February 26, 2009

Obama and Holder Push Assault Weapon Ban

Well that didn’t take long. I really thought that Obama and Holder would lie low on the so called “assault weapon ban” front until they needed to shore up the base ahead of the 2010 mid-term elections. I mean, they’ve already promised to pull the troops out of Iraq in August of next year as a nice election goodie, but I guess in light of potentially multi-trillion dollar deficits and leftist rage over Obama even speaking to anyone on the other side of the aisle has taken its toll on the agenda.

In comments Wednesday , AG Eric Holder stated:

"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."

The article went on to paraphrase Holder:

"Holder said that putting the ban back in place would not only be a positive move by the United States, it would help cut down on the flow of guns going across the border into Mexico, which is struggling with heavy violence among drug cartels along the border."

And if you believe any of that soft headed, unconstitutional bull then I have some beach front property in the Colorado Rockies to sell you. The first assault weapon ban did not prevent the sale of “assault weapons” – it merely limited the number of features that defined an “assault weapon”. Which brings me to the point I made the other day – the term “assault weapon” as it is used today is a legal construct meaning “anything the gun grabbers think they can get away with banning.” It has nothing to do with fully automatic weapons which are heavily restricted in the U.S. Furthermore, the bans proposed since the sunset of the 1994 ban have been far wider in scope and more draconian (and completely unconstitutional), I would expect any bill floated to be equally bad.

The first AWB had no impact on crime – so I find it hard to understand why this would be a “positive” move for the United States. Maybe the limiting of Constitutional rights is seen as a perk by the Obama administration, so what’s next? Limiting freedom of speech? I know, religious bans – those would be positive. Holder and Obama stand on a slippery slope, and rather than taking the high road and getting off of it and moving their policies back in line with the Constitution (and the oaths of office they took), it appears that they have strapped on skis.

The comments that this will improve things for Mexico are even more laughable. First, last time I check Obama and Holder were U.S. officials bound by the U.S. Constitution. Mexico’s internal problems are their own business. Second, the drug lords in Mexico have fully automatic weapons, grenades, rocket launchers, and the like. A U.S. Assault Weapon Ban would not cover any of the above as fully automatic weapons and destructive devices are already heavily regulated in the United States. Their sources are the Mexican Army and criminal organizations throughout Latin America. It’s far more efficient to import the fully automatic weapons with the drugs than to split your supply base.

In short, Holder and Obama are deceiving the public yet again, and our Constitutional rights are in jeopardy because of it. An “assault weapon” ban has NOTHING to do with fully automatic weapons. The legislation represents an incremental ban of certain types of firearms in common use for hunting, self defense, and marksmanship. The Heller decision ruled that such bans were unconstitutional, so legally any AWB is doomed from the outset – unless Obama believes he can pack the Court and get Heller overturned in time.

We have to act now to ensure our rights and liberties are not encroached further. Contact your Congressional representatives now and cut this illegal infringement on our rights off at the ankles.

Until next time!!!

2 comments:

Micah said...

Once again great post. Yeah this is ridiculous and I'm getting so sick of hearing the term 'assault weapon' I wish people would wake up. The good news is, this time around we have the internet and more strength to band together and write legislators and make effective plans. In '94 that didn't exist...

Fingolfen said...

I agree - someone on one of the message boards cross posted the discussion on Democratic Underground as well - consensus there was this was a bad idea as well - there may be hope!