AG set to reinstitute AWB

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Oct 21, 2005
Messages
2,796
.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/fir...n-advocates-ready-battle-federal-assault-ban/


Gun Advocates Ready for Battle on Federal Assault Weapons Ban
Attorney General Eric Holder is using the drug violence in Mexico to "confuse and mislead" Americans in an attempt to reinstate the expired federal assault weapons ban, gun advocates say.


By Joshua Rhett Miller

FOXNews.com

Tuesday, March 17, 2009

Get ready for a gunfight.

Attorney General Eric Holder is using the drug violence in Mexico to "confuse and mislead" Americans in an attempt to reinstate the expired Federal Assault Weapons Ban, gun advocates claim.

Holder revealed his intention to reinstate the ban last month while announcing more than 700 arrests in connection with a crackdown on Mexican drug cartels operating in the United States.

"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 re-institute the ban on the sale of assault weapons," Holder said. "I think that will have a positive impact in Mexico, at a minimum."

Holder said reinstating the ban would decrease the flow of guns from the U.S. into Mexico. He declined to offer a timeframe for any re-implementation; Justice Department spokesman Matt Miller also declined comment on Tuesday.

But Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association, told FOXNews.com that Holder's "argument in general is bizarre."

"It's a delusion to say that diminishing the Second Amendment in America is somehow going to stop these ruthless drug cartels in Mexico."

LaPierre called on Holder and Justice Department officials to uphold existing laws and focus on increasing enforcement along the 2,000-mile U.S.-Mexico border, rather than consider additional legislation.

"The answer is to enforce the law on both sides of the border," LaPierre said. "I reject the notion that the reenactment of that ban would have any impact on the Mexican drug cartels."

LaPierre, referring to the drug-related violence that killed more than 6,200 people in Mexico last year, accused Holder of trying to "put a failed political agenda on the back of a national tragedy."

Signed into law by President Clinton in 1994, the Federal Assault Weapons Ban prohibited the sale of ammunition clips with more than 10 rounds and 19 types of semi-automatic military-style guns, including AK-47s and AR-15s. The ban expired in 2004, and a 10-year extension proposed by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., was voted down.

Click here for photos.

Michael Hammond, spokesman for the Gun Owners of America, said he was not surprised by Holder's comments.

"We expected the Obama administration, contrary to promises made during the campaign, to do everything it can to go after us," Hammond said. "It's no surprise to us that [Holder] is using a crisis as an argument to achieving his policy goals."

During a House subcommittee hearing last week, Chris Cox, executive director of the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action, warned against making U.S. gun owners "scapegoats" for the Mexican crisis.

"The message here is clear: According to some, the violence in Mexico is not the fault of the drug cartels or their American customers, nor is it the fault of decades of Mexican government corruption," Cox said in prepared remarks.

"In their view, the fault lies with American gun owners. This is an outrageous assertion."

Authorities should ramp up border security and continue targeting so-called straw buyers who do the cartels' "dirty work," Cox said.

But Tom Diaz, senior policy analyst at the Violence Policy Center, testified at the subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs on Thursday that the U.S. civilian gun market is fueling violence in Mexico and on both sides of its border.

"If one set out to design a 'legal' market conducive to the business of funneling guns to criminals, one would be hard-pressed to come up with a 'better' system that the U.S. civilian gun market -- short of simply selling guns directly to criminals from manufacturer and importer inventories," Diaz said in prepared remarks.

"The U.S. gun market not only makes gun trafficking in military-style weapons easy, it practically compels that traffic because of the gun market's loose regulations and the gun industry's ruthless design choices over the last several decades."

Citing February 2008 congressional testimony of William Hoover, assistant director of field operations at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), Diaz said military-style weapons like the Barrett .50-caliber rifle, the Colt AR-15 .223-caliber assault rifle and the AK-47 are "precisely the makes and models of firearms that have been carefully designed, manufactured or imported and heavily marketed over the last 20 years by the U.S. civilian gun industry."

More than 7,770 guns sold in the U.S. were traced to Mexico last year, up from 3,300 in 2007 and roughly 2,100 in 2006, according to ATF statistics. It was not immediately clear what percentage of those guns fell under the United States' federal assault weapons ban.

Diaz also cited ATF tracing data that shows Mexican drug cartels receive between 90 and 95 percent of their firearms from the United States.

Along with measures such as targeting Texas, Arizona and California -- the three primary states where firearms are illegally smuggled into Mexico -- Diaz called for the implementation of an "effective" federal assault weapons ban modeled on a bill introduced in 2007 by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y.

Diaz said manufacturers continued to sell assault weapons throughout the ban by making minor design changes. He also called for the passage of a bill introduced by Feinstein during the last session of Congress that would regulate .50-caliber sniper rifles under the National Firearms Act.

Meanwhile, Democratic lawmakers like Alaska Sen. Mark Begich and Montana Sens. Max Baucus and Jon Tester have already informed Holder that they'll vigorously oppose any new gun restrictions the Obama administration may be considering.

In a letter to Holder shortly after his comments, all three senators urged the Justice Department to focus on enforcing existing laws.

And Arizona state Sen. Jonathan Paton, who testified at last week's hearing, said additional gun laws are just not the answer.

"It would actually hurt the problem rather than help it," Paton, a Republican, said of re-instituting the federal assault weapons ban. "They're not giving us the resources on the laws that we already have on the books. What makes me think they're going to give us the resources for new laws?"

Paton cited Mexico's far stricter gun laws as proof that new domestic laws in the United States won't deter criminals intent on trafficking arms.

"It's not going to solve the problem you have with M-16s and AK-47s; they're already banned and they're already going into Mexico at a feverish pace," Paton told FOXNews.com. "The day they start taking their border security as serious as we do, Mexico will cut down tremendously on its amount of guns."

.
 
Olllllld news that's already been discussed at THR. Reid and Pelosi both shunned the idea.
 
Bill will have no support. It will be the kiss of death to any puplic official.

Invoking the Mexican conflict is just the backwards thinking that the Obama admin is all about.


The are in for a fight.
 
I would like to see some empirical evidence that the first ban reduced crime first. Why do we demand that the private sector make responsible decisions when people like this get into office and say stuff that is so blatantly false?

"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 re-institute the ban on the sale of assault weapons," Holder said. "I think that will have a positive impact in Mexico, at a minimum."

We need congress to pass a bill that makes high level government employees criminally responsible for making false statements in public. It seems like more harm is done from intentional political deception that people screaming fire in a crowded theater...

...problem is, who's going to vote for that? :)
 
So what if it's 'old news?' This was the first time I've read it.
I guess USMARINE 0352 and I can't be as cool as you other guys on this thread. :)
 
How so?

Tuesday, March 17, 2009

The original announcement by Eric Holder was about a month ago, and at the time, the gun forums lit up like Christmas. FOX News is just really, really late to the party in reporting this particular story.
 

From the OP

Holder revealed his intention to reinstate the ban last month while announcing more than 700 arrests in connection with a crackdown on Mexican drug cartels operating in the United States.

I don't think anyone's trying to be a jerk here (sorry if that's how it came across) but this is old business. Let's move on to new business.
 
While it is, in fact, old news, I have found that the media continually dredge up anti gun news and present it as new. Actually, almost anything that will get the TV air time filled and attract viewers. They are not news reporters but sales persons, selling their place of employment.

I too get tired of old topics that are being rehashed over and over but I do understand how some might present old news thinking it is new. I just go on to something else.
 
The gun business is there to distract us from the real issues, which is why the gov't throws it up every now and then.
We face much bigger threats from the mortgage bill and the bail-out-a-week plans being floated than from any gun bill that is DOA. People here who are constantly harping on it are aiding and abetting the present administration.
 
We face much bigger threats from the mortgage bill and the bail-out-a-week plans being floated than from any gun bill that is DOA. People here who are constantly harping on it are aiding and abetting the present administration.

Are you unable to think about more than one thing at a time?

Why can't I be concerned about the RKBA, as well as the mortgage bill, and the bailouts?
 
The news in this story is that Holder is using the Mexican drug cartels now as a reason for the AWB. I'm having a hard time believing the cartels are paying top dollar for semi-autos in the US and running them across the border - risky and expensive. Why don't they just buy full-autos from Columbia or a bunch of other places around the world, at much more reasonable costs, and not run the risk of smuggling them out of the US?

Something doesn't add up here, and do you really think that Holder would be making these statements and laying the ground work if Obama didn't secretly support it? He's going to use it as a diversion instead of fixing the real problems, just like Clinton did. So, in a way, if we all throw cold water on it now and make it really clear we aren't going to put up with any more AWB nonsense, it forces the administration to work on the stuff that really matters.

Just my thought.
 
The AG cannot "reinstate" the AWB or any other law. Congress would have to enact a new law.
 
Here's an excerpt from an article, with the link, where General Barry McCaffrey is telling what weapons are available to the drug cartels in Mexico. I notice he says "automatic" weapons. I wonder if he is mistakenly using that term in place of semi automatic. If not, then he is grossly in error in telling us that the US is the problem for "full auto" weapons being found in Mexico. I suspect he is mixing up the terms full auto and semi auto. But then again, he's become a politician now, and once that happens, you must look at their agenda, and not their words. The words fly loosly from their lips and often contradict their true feelings and what their agenda is. Look at Obama. He is probably the most anti gun person we've ever elected to be President. He's even more anti gun than Clinton. But to fool the people, his words that he uses now are as if he's always supported the 2nd A. Riggghhhht, Mr. President. And I've always believed that space aliens attacked Hiroshima and Nagasaki and we got blamed for it. Well, that's no more of a lie than what he spews out.

There may be some "semiautomatic" firearms crossing the border. I seriously doubt that heavy machine guns, RPGs, etc. are being sourced in the US, however. The bottom line is that the Mexican govt. needs to secure their own borders. But they won't do that because they need their own people illegally penetrating the US for jobs and sending the money back home.

Minnesota's ex wrestler-ex governor, Jesse (the Body) Ventura always had one thing right. He always said, "Follow the money!".

Here's the excerpt from, and the link to, the article.

http://www.cfr.org/publication/18593/presidents_foreign_policy_inbox.html


MCCAFFREY: I might add to that one. The only negative push-back I've got on that report was from the gun nuts of America, who are outraged that I would imply that you could buy automatic weapons in the United States in bulk and send them south. And I've, again, gone to the ATF and DEA and they said that's precisely what's happening. By the way, I say that as a gun nut myself. You know, there are so many guns in my house, if it ever catches on fire the fire department would have a two-block radius sealed off.
Now, one caveat on that, however. The astonishing thing to me, listening to Mexican law enforcement, they've seized, what, 25,000-and-some-odd weapons -- a division-sized, battlefield-level seizure of weapons. The AK-47s, the Glocks I think get bought here. Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, elsewhere, I think you can buy them in bulk -- semi-automatic. You change the thing and you end up with an automatic weapon. Why the ATF hasn't had the resources yet to do a decent computer system is beyond me.
But the other thing that you're seeing them seize is heavy-caliber machine guns -- 40-millimeter grenade machine guns, the most modern variants; thousands of military hand grenades and RPGs. And I believe you could walk out the front door of CFR and within minutes buy an illegal weapon, but if you gave me $200,000, I doubt I could get a military hand grenade in this country, and they're seeing thousands of them. So it's not just cross-border, although that may be illegally transiting Miami free trade zone, that kind of thing, but there's obviously an Eastern European, Chinese -- this is not old stuff from El Salvador; this is brand new military hardware. So the poor local police are out-gunned, out-equipped.
 
AG set to re-institute AWB
The AG doesn't have the authority to do that. Only the legislative Branch can make new law, and Pelosi has come out in response to Holder's verbal diarrhea and firmly stated her intention to NOT pursue an AWB.
 
What I find funny is the metion of Pelosi like she is believable. LOL

Oh she is against it right now but we'll see what she thinks about 3 years from now. If the POTUS has a chance to be reelected it will start in the second term. If not.... 3 years.
 
"What I find funny is the metion of Pelosi like she is believable. LOL"

Pelosi's objection to reinstituting the AWB has nothing to do with what she personally believes about guns. She simply doesn't want to see a repeat of the Democratic party self-destruction derby that took place in the wake of the first AWB.

This is one case where I'm glad to see a morally shallow politician sell her personal beliefs down the river for the sake of political expediency.

Tim
 
and firmly stated her intention to NOT pursue an AWB.

"at this time"

That's a very important qualifier that was missing. When she has enough political capital to push her agenda then she will push it through.
 
If you want a legit study on why the AWB didn't do anything, google scholar on Koper Roth - you will find the info.

Their study is a double edged sword. They indicated that the ban had no effect because:

1. Existing stocks were so great
2. Complete substitution in efficacy by EBRs that didn't meet the silly criteria - bayonets, grenades, etc.

So perhaps - one should have a more stringent, confiscatory bans on all semis and EBRs?

That was a point at the discussion from the not friendly to EBRs folk at the session in which they were presenting their results.

BTW - given this is the Internet - I'm not saying should be policy, I'm reporting what I heard at a criminology meeting.
 
I think it's funny that WE have to put in place an AWB to make Mexico safer - what kind of thinking is that?
 
I think it's funny that WE have to put in place an AWB to make Mexico safer - what kind of thinking is that?
Trust me, Holder and Obama are not that stupid. It's a calculated manipulation to push forth a prior agenda.
 
The AG doesn't have the authority to do that. Only the legislative Branch can make new law, and Pelosi has come out in response to Holder's verbal diarrhea and firmly stated her intention to NOT pursue an AWB.

When Pelosi first came out against, this a board member said it best when he compared her to a stray dog, you can pet it while it's looking at you but as soon as you turn away what makes you think she won't bite you in the ars. I don't trust her for a minute. I do agree that this reinstatement is moving very slowly, but we should not for one second let down our guard.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top