Eric Holder is set to be confirmed as the new Attorney General on Monday (2/2/2009); if you think that is a bad idea, as I do, you might want to call your Senator (or perhaps a more reasonable/rational one, as in my case) and voice your reasons why. Holder doesn't believe in abiding by the Constitution, unless he can interpret it as he wants:
Quote:
Thirdly, Korwin, one of many Second Amendment advocates raising concerns, cited a proposal already submitted to Congress at a time when its backers could not reasonably expect it to succeed.
The submission is H.R. 1022 by New York Democrat Carolyn McCarthy and 67 co-sponsors. It was introduced in February 2007 and the next month referred to the House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security, where it has stayed.
But that could change in the 111th Congress, sworn in today. And Korwin said the plan would allow the U.S. Attorney General – possibly Holder – to add to the list of guns banned to the public any "semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General."
"Note that … Holder … wrote a brief in the (District of Columbia) Heller case supporting the position that you have no right to have a working firearm in your own home," Korwin said.
In making this determination, the bill says, "there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any federal law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event."
"In plain English," Korwin said, "This means that any firearm ever obtained by federal officers or the military is not suitable for the public. That presumption can be challenged only by suing the federal government over each firearm it decides to ban, in a court it runs with a judge it pays. This virtually dismisses the principles of the Second Amendment.
"The last part is particularly clever, stating that a firearm doesn't have a sporting purpose just because it can be used for sporting purpose – is that devious or what? And of course, 'sporting purpose' is a rights infringement with no constitutional or historical support whatsoever, invented by domestic enemies of the right to keep and bear arms to further their cause of disarming the innocent," he said.
[From the article by Bob Unruh cited below; the rest is well worth reading!]
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=85507
Quote:
Thirdly, Korwin, one of many Second Amendment advocates raising concerns, cited a proposal already submitted to Congress at a time when its backers could not reasonably expect it to succeed.
The submission is H.R. 1022 by New York Democrat Carolyn McCarthy and 67 co-sponsors. It was introduced in February 2007 and the next month referred to the House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security, where it has stayed.
But that could change in the 111th Congress, sworn in today. And Korwin said the plan would allow the U.S. Attorney General – possibly Holder – to add to the list of guns banned to the public any "semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General."
"Note that … Holder … wrote a brief in the (District of Columbia) Heller case supporting the position that you have no right to have a working firearm in your own home," Korwin said.
In making this determination, the bill says, "there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any federal law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event."
"In plain English," Korwin said, "This means that any firearm ever obtained by federal officers or the military is not suitable for the public. That presumption can be challenged only by suing the federal government over each firearm it decides to ban, in a court it runs with a judge it pays. This virtually dismisses the principles of the Second Amendment.
"The last part is particularly clever, stating that a firearm doesn't have a sporting purpose just because it can be used for sporting purpose – is that devious or what? And of course, 'sporting purpose' is a rights infringement with no constitutional or historical support whatsoever, invented by domestic enemies of the right to keep and bear arms to further their cause of disarming the innocent," he said.
[From the article by Bob Unruh cited below; the rest is well worth reading!]
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=85507