Holder infers gun control a low priority, wants to work with NRA

"AG signals low priority

Attorney General Eric Holder is signaling that the Obama Administration is not interested in getting into a major political battle ...

... to pass sensitive gun control legislation, such as re-instituting a ban on assault weapons or requiring background checks at gun shows.

In an interview aired Tuesday on the CBS Evening News with Katie Couric, Holder indicated that the administration plans to take a pragmatic approach to the issue.

“I think the thing we need to do is come up with those things we can do right away,” he said, addressing a question about guns purchased in the U.S. for use in the drug-related violence plaguing Mexico.

Back in February, Holder told a Senate confirmation hearing that the gun-show and assault-weapons measures would be constitutional and “good from a law enforcement perspective.”

Asked by Couric about his change in emphasis, Holder said: “No one’s told me to back off. I understand the Second Amendment. I respect the Second Amendment.”

Holder was noncommittal about whether the administration would take any steps to advance the gun control legislation. “These are issues that we'll have to discuss. The president will be the one who will ultimately set policy. Things that are politically saleable and things that will ultimately be effective,” the attorney general said.

When discussing the Justice Department’s independence, the attorney general also offered up a soundbite that could be played again and again should any close allies of or aides to President Obama wind up in trouble with the law. According to a transcript provided by CBS, Holder said of Obama: “He understands that great Justice Departments are those that separate thems"

http://www.politico.com/politico44/perm/0409/holder_on_guns_695eb3a2-64cf-4980-9c28-ff5f6c6c91f3.html


"Asked if the gun issue has become political and if Democrats are getting cozy with the National Rifle Association (NRA), Holder responded, “I don’t think it has and in fact, I look forward to working with the NRA to come up with ways in which we can use common-sense approaches to reduce the level of violence that we see in our streets and make the American people as safe as they can possibly be.”

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/eric-holder-white-house-did-not-silence-me-on-guns-2009-04-08.html

Asked if the gun issue has become political and if Democrats are getting cozy with the National Rifle Association (NRA), Holder responded, “I don’t think it has and in fact, I look forward to working with the NRA to come up with ways in which we can use common-sense approaches to reduce the level of violence that we see in our streets and make the American people as safe as they can possibly be.”
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/eric-holder-white-house-did-not-silence-me-on-guns-2009-04-08.html

While many of the gun control advocates here on DU will go as ballistic as a North Korean missile over the idea of working WITH the NRA to develop new ideas, it makes perfect sense.

The NRA worked with the government in the past to develop the instant background check and still works with congress to improve gun laws:

Senior Democrats have reached agreement with the National Rifle Association on what could be the first federal gun-control legislation since 1994, a measure to significantly strengthen the national system that checks the backgrounds of gun buyers.

The sensitive talks began in April, days after a mentally ill gunman killed 32 students and teachers at Virginia Tech University. The shooter, Seung Hui Cho, had been judicially ordered to submit to a psychiatric evaluation, which should have disqualified him from buying handguns. But the state of Virginia never forwarded that information to the federal National Instant Check System (NICS), and the massacre exposed a loophole in the 13-year-old background-check program.

Under the agreement, participating states would be given monetary enticements for the first time to keep the federal background database up to date, as well as penalties for failing to comply.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/09/AR2007060901080_pf.html

Instead of playing the gun control issue like two football teams playing in the Super Bowl, it would make sense for all parties to get together and find some common ground that would actually help reduce gun violence.

we need a new approach to gun management and safety wherein we don't shoot ourselves politically.

However it seems like Obama administration is reigning in the different voices and come out w/ a unified message which I would sum up with "guns? we have more important battles to fight".

I am more confident now that Obama will leave guns alone than I was a months ago when Holder was running off at the mouth about "Assault weapons" and Clinton talking about "US guns killing people in Mexico".

Seems like everyone got the memo:

Staff,

Hey we got a good shot in 2010 and I would like to keep this job in 2012 so I am only going to say this once. Shut the fuck up about guns. You aren't helping me any.

Your CIC & Buddy, Obama

Seems like everyone got the memo:

Staff,

Hey we got a good shot in 2010 and I would like to keep this job in 2012 so I am only going to say this once. Shut the fuck up about guns. You aren't helping me any.

Your CIC & Buddy, Obama

I think they are just not talking about it but I don't think they have changed their stance on it at all.

I'm assuming Holder had a small amount of enjoyment over stomping on Pelosi (she released a statement yesterday) considering what happened last time.

Now we just need a certain rewriting of a certain Urban policy statement on Whitehouse.gov, and hopefully a statement from Pres. Obama. I'd settle for the former.

Looks like eyes are back on the congress until Clinton sends us all scurrying back in the other direction.

Not pleased to see the 90% stated as fact again (by Couric). The truth is a truly wondrously malleable thing.

That AWB statement would never have made it into President Obama's campaign website or the WH site.

You notice they never speak about repealing the 2nd amendment because it would be political suicide. Instead, they weasel around and try to undermine it through the court system or legislation figuring that even if they pass an unconstitutional bill, they can force the citizens to spend money to defend their rights.

Do that (with restrictions on what data the ATF may retain), and the streets will be safer.

And the Republicans will blow a gasket.

You have to get a lot of information about of person. Identity theft could be a problem.

and the store runs the background check for the typical fee.

If the buyer passes the background check he gets to purchase your weapon.

The store gives you a statement that the buyer passed the check.

I really haven't done any research on this issue, so if I'm missing something, please point out my misconception.

All my recent sales have only been to people that I know who have a concealed carry permit. That's my way of making sure that I don't sell a weapon to some dangerous individual.

Some FFL charge as much as $50. They tend to charge more in states that require FFL for all private transactions since you have no choice.

Most I ever saw listed was an FFL in CA requesting $75 to complete the transfer.

to really crack down on "straw purchasers" and criminals who are found to be in possession of firearms????? Didn't Virgina have a program called "Exile" or "Project Exile"???? I heard they saw great success with pushing mandatory 5 years in a fed prison for criminals caught with a firearm.

Laws Designed to Disarm Slaves, Freedmen, and African-Americans

http://www.old-yankee.com/rkba/racial_laws.html

all the guns and ammo? If it does a lot of people in the firearms business and the NRA will be very disappointed.

I doubt it will change anything unless a major policy announcement it released.

So I don't.

or depressed due to their situation, go crazy, and the admin will HAVE to do something. An AWB would be a convenient (& useless) start, but registration has been mentioned/proposed by some in congress.

The 'Obama is anti-gun' accusations become more real, more people get pissed, and away we go...

cop-killing criminals glorified by left wing wackos??

Lovelle Mixon

My self, I don't give a shit if it's some militia dickhead with his copy of the "Turner Diaries", some Communist with his copy of "Das Kapital" or just a plain old-fashioned thug who thinks he deserves what's in your wallet. You are not likely to know which are truly dangerous until the commit their first overt act. Once they have done that you prevent repeat performances by using the "Law of Gravity!" Make sure the rope doesn't let their little tootsies touch the ground. Our prison space should be reserved for violent dangerous criminals.

Most other approaches are like stopping drunk driving by taking the keys away from sober people.

Though I do like your solution.

a right wing monopoly on homicidal lunatics. "A few more wackos, stirred up by the RW mouthpieces,"

You might be right, perhaps left wing lunatics prefer bombs and arson to guns. I have no data, but I suspect gang-bangers and career criminals are not registered to vote with any party.

Regardless, except for ability of a vindictive spouse to obtain a retraining order on the sheerest allegation, we, at present, prohibit CONVICTED felons and those whose mental illness has been adjudicated from legally acquiring firearms, that is persons with a proven dangerous past.

There are those here can only countenance two approaches to the problem:

a. Ban the technology. Outlaw all guns for all uses, which would be akin to banning fire. Do you jail folks for possessing lighters, matches, flint and steel?

b. Vilify all gun owners.They are all mass murderers, some just haven't shot anyone yet, but possess the means. This is like preventing rape by drowning all male babies at birth.

But I can see I may have left out non-party affiliated scumbags, by seeming to narrow it down to just those stirred to violence by RW jockeys.
Sorry.

Any wacko, homicidal lunatic, or gang-banging fucker will do, then again, it may not even be necessary now.

'Guns' is too hot a topic right now for the administration to ignore.

That the crap that is posted on the internet has a lot to do with the whackos out there though? That guy that shot the cops was a member of white supremesist groups. I would be willing to bet he did lots of research to find groups to communicate with and hook up with. Share their hate filled ideas.

some where - real or otherwise.

Pelosi made it official to ABC: ‘We want registration.’

the Supreme Court has ruled in a very- in a direction that gives more opportunity for people to have guns. We never denied that right. We don't want to take their guns away. We want them registered. We don’t want them crossing state lines...

http://www.examiner.com/x-4525-Seattle-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m4d8-Pelosi-made-it-official-to-ABC-We-want-registration

She is going to keep beating this dead horse until she is the minority leader.

They have all said as much.