â€œReasonable restrictions are still possible,â€ Holder said.
That was Ashcroft's position, too.
Jeez, Charlie, couldn't you give us a hint?
Oh great! He actually used the term "Cop Killer Bullets". I bet he's an avid reloader.
It was a quick read, Melvin.
And Virgil I found this statement he made important, "The Heller ruling, Holder said, was a â€œvery significant opinion.â€" I think most would have expected something else from Obama's appointee. I know I did! Though I'm not sure what "cop killer" bullets are. All kill well if placed correctly.
The one brief excerpted statement in the link doesn't surprise me. I would expect a man who wants to be Attorney General to say that he accepts the Courts decision.
Unfortunately, Mr Holder's appearances on media outlets following the Elian Gonzalez fiasco show that he's not exactly a straight shooter.
From an interview with Judge Andrew Napolitano:
Napolitano: When is the last time a boy, a child, was taken at the point of a gun without an order of a judge. Unprecedented in American history."
Holder: "He was not taken at the point of a gun."
Napolitano: "We have a photograph showing he was taken at the point of a gun."
Also keep in mind that Holderâ€™s idea of â€œreasonable restrictionsâ€ that should be unaffected by D.C. v. Heller are things like a minimum age of 21 years for firearm ownership, federal government licensing and registration of guns and gun owners, waiting periods for all transfers, so-called â€œone gun a monthâ€ laws, semi-auto bans, a prohibition on private transfers etc.
It's interesting to read Dr Stephen Halbrook's testimony against Holder's confirmation: Link to Transcript
Holder's very appointment hearings are tainted with unConstitutional behavior, setting the tone for an administration that promises playing fast and loose with the rules...
It is extraordinary that current Senate staffers would work for the executive branch nominee â€” a fundamental violation of the separation between the branches of government. These aides are employed by and paid by the Senate, which is supposed to be performing its institutional obligation to examine and, if appropriate, confirm the executive branchâ€™s nominees. Granted they are of the same party as the incoming administration, but are key aides of the senators â€” who are supposed to be evaluating the qualifications, character and experience of the nominee â€“
"I'm not sure what "cop killer" bullets are. All kill well if placed correctly."
Charlie, this is a term coined by the anti-gun whackos. They refer to any ammo that will penetrate a police officer's body armor. Of course, every hunting round I can think of right off the bat will penetrate police style body armor. It's wonderful for getting ignorant people all worked up and wonderful because it places the NRA in the position of "defending cop killer bullets". People who advocate getting rid of "cop killer bullets" are either unprincipled slime or stupid.
Why not throw in homophobic?
Judge Andrew Napolitano nailed it in that interview. I think I referenced it when Holder was first named.
We're going to get Holder, no matter what.
I think, however, that Judge Andrew Napolitano should run for high office. His books make it crystal clear that he understands the Constitution and can articulate it in a fashion that even a school kid can understand.
Holder is an idiot! In fact most in this new administration are as well. Be afraid, be very afraid gun owners. Any of you gun owners who voted for Obama will soon regret it big time.
From over the transom:
What if a Republican president submitted for cabinet confirmation ...
1. A Treasury Secretary with supervisory powers over the IRS who failed to report and pay taxes on over $100,000 in personal income?
2. A Commerce Secretary who had to withdraw because of an investigation into "pay to play" allegations in the state where he sits as governor?
3. A Secretary of Transportation revealed to be the king of earmarks while in Congress?
4. A Secretary of State whose husband is an international free-booter collecting millions from many of the very countries and leaders with whom his wife must deal in representing vital U.S. interests?
5. An Attorney General who failed to blow the whistle upon one the most infamous pardons ever granted by a sitting President?
6. A Solicitor General who has never argued a case before the U.S. Supreme Court?
7. A Secretary of Labor who refuses to reveal her positions on issues vital to the American business community?
9. A television personality with no public experience whatsoever for Surgeon General?
10. A long-time Congressman and former White House Chief of Staff to head the Central Intelligence Agency?
It would be on the news every night and in every major newspaper every day until every one of the individuals resigned or refused to accept the job offer. After that they would be hounded until they were tried and prosecuted. Democrats??? Just another day at the office. Democrats can only do three things. Steal money from other people. Steal property from other people. Take away our Constitutional rights. That's it. That is the sum of all things Democratic.
Here are the 21 Nays:
from malkins site ( no their names are not listed )
AMG has a very cool little "2nd Amendment" forum going HERE for threads/stories just like this!
Naran/Michelle, could you please move to there?
I guess itâ€™s no big surprise that â€œtheir namesâ€ arenâ€™t on the list.
As a side note, I sent e-mails to both of them on this subject and the replies I received were almost comical.
Someone in Senator Snoweâ€™s office clicked on the wrong form letter in their word processor, because the letter I received had nothing to do with the Holder nomination.
Senator Collins response was rambling and non-committal, she didnâ€™t even have the courage to just come out and say that she intended to vote for confirmation.
Holder's very appointment hearings are tainted with unConstitutional behavior, setting the tone for an administration that promises playing fast and loose with the rules...Quote:It is extraordinary that current Senate staffers would work for the executive branch nominee â€” a fundamental violation of the separation between the branches of government. These aides are employed by and paid by the Senate, which is supposed to be performing its institutional obligation to examine and, if appropriate, confirm the executive branchâ€™s nominees. Granted they are of the same party as the incoming administration, but are key aides of the senators â€” who are supposed to be evaluating the qualifications, character and experience of the nominee â€“If this goes unnoticed by the sycophantic press (and it will), the green light will be on.