Eric Holder on Gun Control

By Jeralyn, Section Other Politics
Posted on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 07:29:50 PM EST
Tags: gun rights, Eric Holder (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Eric Holder has always been a strong supporter of gun control. From his Weekly Briefing on March 20, 2000 (available on Lexis.com):

I want to add my voice to those who are calling on Congress to finally -- to finally -- pass these very common-sense gun measures.

First, to require child safety locks for all handguns that are sold. Second, to ban violent juveniles from ever having the ability to own guns.

Third, to pass the president's handgun licensing proposal, which requires safety certification for all handgun purchasers.

More...

Fourth, to support research in smart-gun technology, which can limit a gun's use to its authorized owner.

And finally, to close the gun show loop hole by requiring a background check for all gun purchases at gun shows.

Every day that goes by, about 12, 13 more children in this country die from gun violence. We need these common-sense measures and we need them now.

< Eric Holder's 1997 Deputy A.G. Confirmation Hearing | Begich Wins >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Eric Holder on Gun Control | 39 comments (39 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Outside of the (5.00 / 2) (#3)
by eric on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 07:50:51 PM EST

mention of "smart gun technology", whatever that is, all of it seems pretty common sense. It isn't gun control, only gun safety.

I don't know E... (1.00 / 1) (#14)
by kdog on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 08:45:25 AM EST

banning juvenile offenders from ever owning a gun sounds rather extreme to me.

Go to juvie for a childhood mistake and I believe you should get all your rights back when you're an adult...all of 'em. A second chance is the American way...or at least it used to be.


Oops (none / 0) (#17)
by eric on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 08:57:23 AM EST

I agree, I missed the word, "ever" there. I am all for forgiving and erasing juvenile records altogether and banning gun ownership once one is an adult is inconsistent with that. I guess that I read it to mean that juvenile offenders shouldn't have guns - while they are juveniles.


: That's the Eric... (none / 0) (#18)
by kdog on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 09:04:34 AM EST

I know and admire:)
We will need to keep a close watch on this Holder cat..a Democratic prosecutor is still a prosecutor.

Juvie, therapy, support and forgiveness (none / 0) (#38)
by MyLeftMind on Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 02:36:54 PM EST

is fine if you were just in an underage fist fight. But when 17 year olds rape and murder, it's not youthful exuberance and I'm not convinced they'll ever function normally in society. I'd be happy to prevent them from legally buying guns as an adult.


Child safety locks? (5.00 / 1) (#29)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 11:19:11 AM EST

First, to require child safety locks for all handguns that are sold.

What the heck is a "child safety lock?" Is that the new, agenda-laden name for the same old gun locks that have been around forever?

Anyway, I think he's referring to the Child Safety Lock Act which would have required all commercial handgun sales to include a safety lock.

Kinda silly, imo. The buyer would only use the lock if he/she felt like using it. The law would have little/no practical effect except to increase the cost of the transaction.

I imagine gun lock manufacturers, however, were salivating at the prospect...

Second, to ban violent juveniles from ever having the ability to own guns.

Like that would have any practical effect on someone who wants a gun.

Third, to pass the president's handgun licensing proposal, which requires safety certification for all handgun purchasers.

This has some merit, although I can see huge problems in the implementation of such a law. We don't need another gvt bureaucracy like the DMV.

Fourth, to support research in smart-gun technology, which can limit a gun's use to its authorized owner.

From everything I've researched there are no simple and effective technologies. iow, they don't work so good.

And since they limit the user's ability to actually fire the gun, they limit the user's ability to defend themselves when necessary.

And lastly:

And finally, to close the gun show loop hole by requiring a background check for all gun purchases at gun shows.

There is no "gun show loophole."

The private sale of guns, like the private sale of cars, used clothing or just about any other private transaction, are not regulated by the gvt.

There are private citizens who occasionally buy and sell guns between other private citizens all across America, and most every gun show has at least some.

Regardless of the location of the sale, a private sale of a gun is a private sale.

Not such a big fan of Holden re: gun control.

: Requiring sale of gun locks is a good thing. (none / 0) (#39)
by MyLeftMind on Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 03:00:59 PM EST

Since they can cost $50-100, many people wouldn't buy them unless forced to do so. But once they own them, they're likely to use them. I use coded locks so the kids can't find the keys. We just lost a teen girl in our town last month who broke up with her high school sweetheart, went home after school and used her parents' handgun to kill herself. What a waste. Perhaps a trigger lock would have prevented her suicide long enough for her to get past her impulsive reaction to an emotional crisis. Maybe not, but maybe so...
Who cares if gun lock manufacturers salivate over laws that require purchase of locks. They save lives.

There is no "gun show loophole." The private sale of guns, like the private sale of cars, used clothing or just about any other private transaction, are not regulated by the gvt.

Private or not, it's in the public's interest to regulate the sale of guns. Jeez, I've seen guns for sale in yard sales! If we can require a license to buy guns from a dealer, then we can require a license to buy a gun from private individuals. It's true than anyone can get a gun if they want to, but restrictions limit the availability of guns in a community.

Good luck with (none / 0) (#1)
by Pepe on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 07:38:19 PM EST

smart-gun technology. That will never happen nor should it. For one it is a danger to self-defense which defeats the purpose of why some people buy guns.

Looks to me that Holder's old statement being republished around just created another new run on gun purchases before January. I know I will be keeping an eye on the Christmas sales.

Can you please clarify? (none / 0) (#8)
by Manuel on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 08:18:25 PM EST

For one it is a danger to self-defense.

I am not sure what smart gun technology is. If it refers to having the gun recognize only the group of people authorized to use it, I don't see how that is a danger to self defense.


More complexity (none / 0) (#20)
by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 09:25:11 AM EST

More complexity inherently reduces reliability. The number one most important thing when you need a gun for self defence is not accuracy, power, caliber, magazine capacity or any of that. The most inportant thing is that it goes boom when you pull the trigger.

All of these recognition technologies are not inherently reliable to stake your life upon. If the technology is not good enough for police and military it is not good enough for me.


: Granted it may not be ready today (none / 0) (#35)
by Manuel on Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 01:24:01 PM EST

But what is the problem with pursuing it? Also, what measures do you support for preventing accidents. I don't think anyone would deny that seatbelts, air bags, and child proof caps for medicines save lives.

Drunks and preschoolers with guns (none / 0) (#2)
by JSN on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 07:45:55 PM EST

does make for an interesting time.

We are going to have a Bajan! (none / 0) (#4)
by bluegal on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 07:57:50 PM EST

I met Eric Holder at an event in SF a few years ago and from my interaction with him, he believes in the Constitution and of course, Civil Rights. I'm very excited that he will be AG and did you guys know that he is a Bajan (parents from Barbados)?!?!?

Thrilled as a fellow Afro-Caribbean

I don't know blue... (none / 0) (#15)
by kdog on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 08:47:30 AM EST

have you seen what he has said about marijuana laws?

Can you believe in the Constitution and civil rights, while at the same time not believing in what I consider to be a most basic freedom, the freedom to self-medicate?


: depends on which civil rights... (none / 0) (#19)
by Salo on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 09:24:30 AM EST

...or constitutional rights o' course.

Some people (none / 0) (#5)
by DeanOR on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 08:08:58 PM EST

might not appreciate him. Tomorrow is "National Ammo Day" for gun lovers! They hope to buy all the ammo on the shelves of the gun shops so billions of rounds will be in the hands of "law-abiding citizens".
http://www.ammoday.com/

Is he still a DrugWar fanatic? (none / 0) (#6)
by Ben Masel on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 08:11:59 PM EST

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/local/longterm/drugs/mjtrafic.htm

1996

In addition, U.S. Attorney Eric H. Holder Jr. said in an interview that he is considering not only prosecuting more marijuana cases but also asking the D.C. Council to enact stiffer penalties for the sale and use of marijuana.
"We have too long taken the view that what we would term to be minor crimes are not important," Holder said, referring to current attitudes toward marijuana use and other offenses such as panhandling.

I flipped on MSNBC (none / 0) (#7)
by kenosharick on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 08:12:14 PM EST

(I have not watched them in months) to see what they were saying about Holder, and within 5 min. they were attacking Bill Clinton.again. still. Now I remember why I do not watch them anymore.

Very sensible positions. (none / 0) (#9)
by oculus on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 08:20:56 PM EST

Sensible, indeed. (none / 0) (#10)
by easilydistracted on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 08:42:51 PM EST

Yet, me thinks the majority of the folks here in the lone star state will probably disagree.

I remember when the NRA... (none / 0) (#11)
by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 10:18:31 PM EST

...used to support things like gun safety training, responsible weapon ownership and trigger locks. Like the GOP, they seemingly have been taken over by the nuts and common sense has gone out the door.

The NRA (none / 0) (#22)
by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 09:32:50 AM EST

The NRA still supports those things.

Gun Safety


Sorry, but that link doesn't support... (none / 0) (#25)
by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 09:57:52 AM EST

...your contention. One small program with some silly mascot is not what I would call "walking the talk". "What to do if you find a gun" is not the same as teaching proper and responsible gun shooting/handling safety.

The NRA that I belonged to as a youngster is not anything like what the NRA is about today. That was most cleary evidenced by their "the scary black man is coming to take your guns away" ad campaign. Instilling fear is not the same as teaching gun safety or responsible usage of same.


I only had time for one link. (none / 0) (#27)
by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 10:52:56 AM EST

My daughter and I have been through NRA pistol safety classes recently. Thesi included safe handeling, shooting, and storage among other topics.

When was the last time you took one of their classes?


I wouldn't take one of their classes... (none / 0) (#31)
by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 11:47:00 AM EST

...when I can get better training from the state DOW--and it comes without the fear-based propaganda.


Then (none / 0) (#32)
by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 12:11:27 PM EST

I wouldn't take one of their classes...

Then your statement that the NRA "used to support things like gun safety training, responsible weapon ownership and trigger locks." seems more based on feelings than facts.


: Of course you would be wrong. (none / 0) (#34)
by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 02:16:45 PM EST

I took their training as a kid and was an NRA marksman to boot. I also recently went with my nephews when they took a training class before they were allowed to have possession of my Dad's guns.
So I have a real good handle on the differences between now and then.

From the NRA website: (none / 0) (#30)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 11:22:43 AM EST

From beginner to developing competitor, the NRA Training Department develops safe, ethical, responsible shooters through a network of more than 55,000 instructors, more than 2,300 coaches, and more than 1,500 training counselors.
NRA Training Counselors recruit and train instructors to teach NRA's basic firearm courses.
NRA Coaches, in turn, develop competitors at the club, high school, collegiate and national levels.

Yawn (none / 0) (#12)
by BrassTacks on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 11:26:25 PM EST

Gun control and Marijuana control. He's going to have to do better than that before I start applauding this choice.

: Hell yeah... (none / 0) (#16)
by kdog on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 08:48:54 AM EST

where are the police state-control and tyranny-control proposals?
That's right..they're not coming.

Dead Issue (none / 0) (#13)
by mmc9431 on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 05:20:04 AM EST

Democrat's have abandoned any effort to enact even common sense gun regulations. I had hoped that with homeland security and the terror threats, we might have been able to at least implement some control. But the NRA and Republican's have succeeded in shutting down any debate. And after the latest SC ruling, I see no hope.

: Yeah (none / 0) (#26)
by Wile ECoyote on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 10:27:44 AM EST

those pesky individual rights...

: Control (none / 0) (#37)
by Bitter Cling on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 05:32:21 PM EST

"I had hoped that with homeland security and the terror threats, we might have been able to at least implement some control."
So essentially, you were hoping to undermine liberty while the sheep were still terrified? The democrats and republicans differ only in which civil liberties they seek to usurp. Both care more about aquiring power than the security or freedom of the people and personal liberty is directly at odds with the power they seek. As a matter of fact, gun control has nothing to do with guns and everything to do with control.

Banning a 13 year old. (none / 0) (#21)
by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 09:27:42 AM EST

A life time ban on a 13 year old who gets in a fist fight is hardly common sense.

: He said what he said..... (none / 0) (#24)
by kdog on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 09:47:16 AM EST

Second, to ban violent juveniles from ever having the ability to own guns.
A 13 year old charged with assault over a fist-fight would be banned from ever owning a gun if Holder had his way...how else could you read it?
I know, it is hard to believe that the normal childhood behavior of fist-fighting could lead to an assault charge...but it happens.

: Felons are already prohibited (none / 0) (#28)
by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 10:57:49 AM EST

So it sounds as if he wants to go after violence that does not rise to a felony.

: Psychological tests (none / 0) (#40)
by jondee on Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 03:12:22 PM EST

that change on a regular basis, seems workable.
Btw, Not to say that bad things dont happen to good people, but this need-for-protection meme is, IMO, tinged with more than hint of paranoia and good ole American gun-related power fanatsies.
This is coming from a person who spent ALOT of time in the bad part of town at one point in my life and also drove a cab in the city (night shift) for three years.
Everyone's just too scared in this country too much of the time, and the killers probobly most of all.

Rights vs privleges (none / 0) (#33)
by shonuf on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 02:13:18 PM EST

Gun ownership is a right (albeit somewhat restricted, as are all others), at least according to almost all Constitutional Historians and the Supreme Court. In any case, if you want to argue that approach, take it up with them, not me. :)

If restricting rights to those "deserving" or "capable", we might as well propose "common sense" regulations on the usage of First Amendment rights, lord knows there are plenty of people exercising those who shouldn't be!

Eric Holder (none / 0) (#36)
by Bitter Cling on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 04:32:47 PM EST

Eric Holder, according to "news" reports wants to ban guns to stop the flow of grenades and machine guns to Mexico, but grenades and machine guns are not openly available to the public in stores (a very limited inventory of MGs nationally can be obtained with special FBI and local LEO clearance at $10K and up each); he also wants to ban the sale of "cop killer" bullets, which is actually two mistakes -- any bullet aimed at a cop is a potential killer and totally illegal already (with death penalty as punishment), and special ammunition so named by the Brady gun-ban group is already banned to the public. So essentially Holder proposes to ban something that is already banned... so he can dramatize 'doing something about crime' on the public stage.