AG Holder Signals No Immediate Efforts to Enact More Gun Control

I'm pleased to read over at Crooks and Liars that Attorney General Eric Holder told Katie Couric in an interview last night that more gun control laws are not on the Administration's front burner.

KATIE COURIC: Did someone tell you to back off?

ERIC HOLDER: No one's told me to back off. I understand the Second Amendment. I respect the Second Amendment.

What makes this even more interesting is that Holder was such a gun crime advocate during the Janet Reno/Bill Clinton days.

< The "Money" Quote | Somali Pirates Hold U.S. Ship Captain Hostage >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Well, (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by jbindc on Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 02:05:11 PM EST
    The families of the three slain Pittsburgh police officers will be glad to hear that, since the guy who laid in wait and shot them was worried that Obama would try to take his guns.

    Trying to control an image IMO (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Saul on Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 02:32:06 PM EST
    The right wing radio have been saying that Obama is going to take your guns away even before he was elected.  This has sparked a sale on guns.  The news have posted that the right wing hysteria about Obama taking your guns away is partially responsible for the recent killings in the news.  

    I think now Obama  wants to assure all Americans that there is nothing to his crazy hysteria about him taking peoples' gun away and that IMO is why Holder did not say much to Katie on this subject.  If Holder would have commented on it then it would have given a smidgen of validity to the hysteria.  

    A caller from Texas on Thom Hartmann (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by imhotep on Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 04:31:35 PM EST
    this am said people in his town were stocking up on guns because they are sure BHO is going to take their guns away.
    Even the idea of getting a license is anathema to many wing-nuts.

    Sad day here in Pittsburgh (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by smott on Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 03:06:08 PM EST
    The funeral procession was today, miles of parkway shut down as hundreds of police vehicles rolled into town.

    ALready our Public Safety Dept has enacted new scripts for the 911 Ops re presence of guns and getting more details in domestic disputes. The 911 op on this call explicitly typed "no weapons" on the call that went out, even though the caller (the Mom) said he had guns in the house ("all legal"...apparently not if the AK47 was auto as indicated).

    Also an article in the Pgh papers today re the "deafening silence" on gun control in Congress since the latest sprees. Particularly amongst Dems who got their seats from Repubs.

    I guess our blue dogs are redder than we thought.  

    If someone (3.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Wile ECoyote on Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 04:06:51 PM EST
    misused drugs and police died, would you say the same thing?

    Mexican drug lords (none / 0) (#1)
    by jtaylorr on Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 01:41:42 PM EST
    will be very happy to hear this.

    Puh-leeze. (none / 0) (#2)
    by scribe on Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 01:46:39 PM EST
    They're still getting over their revel from the news that there will be no effort to legalize their product and only stronger enforcement.  They know that the minute their product is legalized and taxed, there will be no money left in their businesses.  The only ones who haven't figured that out are in the US government.  That, or there's too much career potential in continuing the drug war for those government employees to give it up.

    American gun dealers.. (none / 0) (#3)
    by kdog on Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 01:48:04 PM EST
    not so much, the "they're coming for our guns" rumors were/are great for business.

    Not that they should worry, I'm sure gun enthusiasts will keep on stockin' up on their favorite models and ammo until an R is back in office.


    It is great marketing. (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by connecticut yankee on Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 05:04:39 PM EST
    The auto companies need to fund a lobby that cries, "THEY ARE GOING TO TAKE YOUR CARS!!!!!" every chance they get.  Link patriotism with car ownership and convince every half-wit that owning car x makes him the next paul revere/superman/defender of liberty.

    There is no doubt that the NRA is marketing a walter mitty fantasy to sell more guns.


    Why (none / 0) (#14)
    by Wile ECoyote on Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 07:00:29 PM EST
    not?  Patriotism has been linked with tax paying, why not cars?  After, all the gov't is now guaranteeing the warranty.

    But, KDog, it was an NRA Life Member that (none / 0) (#5)
    by SeeEmDee on Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 02:11:46 PM EST
    signed the so-called "Assault Rifle Ban" legislation into existence.

    His name was George Herbert Walker Bush. One of the biggest "R's" that ever was. And that played a big role in the splintering of the NRA and the formation of smaller but more energetic activist Second Amendment groups. Needless to say, that only fanned the fires of those contemplating forming their own militia groups.

    Maybe AG Holder is aware of that history ,and prefers not to get the hair-trigger sorts too riled...as he gathers more information on the subject. Or he may be completely oblivious about it all. Who knows?

    Incorrect (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Ben Masel on Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 03:40:27 PM EST
    GHWB signed an import ban. The NRA put up only nominal resistance because they're much closer to the domestic manufacturers. Clinton signed the so-called  "Assault Weapons Ban."

    Very well, then, I stand corrected (none / 0) (#16)
    by SeeEmDee on Fri Apr 10, 2009 at 07:55:49 AM EST
    In as much as the import ban went...but only that much.

    GHWB was no friend to the very constituency that is presently (no pun intended) 'up in arms' about the possibility of a blanket ban on semi-auto versions of 'assault rifles' being re-instated.

    IMHO, that was no small part of the reason for groups dissatisfied with the NRA leadership back then to splinter off from the NRA into offshoots that, due to their more extreme views regarding the role of the Federal government, began to accrete into the nascent Militia groups. Many of said groups then began to engage in overt criminal activities...as they no longer felt any obligation to adhere to society's conventions.

    That process may be repeating itself, in a wholly predictable way as it happened before; I fear Santayana's ghost is laughing.

    Rough times ahead, folks. I was so looking forward to a quiet century after the raving, foaming, blood-dripping  mad-house of the last one. I guess I shoulda known...


    Holder went too far then (none / 0) (#8)
    by diogenes on Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 02:34:42 PM EST
    He didn't have to imply (though not state, lawyer that he is) that the reason there will be no push for gun control laws is that he "understands the second amendment".  Of course, next year he'll push for the laws and say that he understood the second amendment to allow gun control and say that he was misunderstood.  

    Why are you pleased? (none / 0) (#15)
    by Mikeb302000 on Fri Apr 10, 2009 at 03:21:25 AM EST
    Jeralyn, Is it because you think a statement like that will cut down on the hysteria and perhaps prevent other tragedies, or because you think the administration should not have additional gun control laws on its front burner?

    ALL of our Constitution.

    It's admirable.

    If I may speak for her, she thinks the administration should not have additional gun control laws on any of its burners.


    what about the ones currently on the book? (none / 0) (#18)
    by nyjets on Fri Apr 10, 2009 at 11:00:33 AM EST
    Does she feel that the current gun control laws are adequate or does she believe that there should be no gun control laws.