Skip to comments.23 State Attorneys General To Attorney General Holder: "No Semi-Auto Ban"
Posted on 06/12/2009 4:42:45 PM PDT by neverdem
click here to read article
We the undersigned Attorneys General respectfully write to express our opposition to the reinstatement of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994s semi-automatic firearms prohibition, which is commonly referred to as the assault weapons ban.
As the states top law enforcement officials, we share the Obama Administrations commitment to reducing illegal drugs and violent crime within the United States. We also share your deep concern about drug cartel violence in Mexico. However, we do not believe that restricting lawabiding Americans access to certain semi-automatic firearms will resolve any of these problems. So, we were pleased by the Presidents recent comments indicating his desire to enforce current laws rather than reinstate the ban on so-called assault weapons.
As you know, the 1994 ban on so-called assault weapons did not apply to machine guns or other fully automatic firearms. Machine gun ownership was first regulated when the National Firearms Act was passed in 1934. And more than twenty years ago, Congress took additional steps to ban fully automatic weapons. Because fully automatic machine guns have already been banned, we do not believe that further restricting law-abiding Americans access to certain semiautomatic firearms serves any real law enforcement purpose.
Recent public statements by congressional leaders reflect that same view. On February 26, 2009, The Hill newspaper quoted the Senate Majority Leaders spokesman saying: Sen. Reid would oppose an effort [to] reinstate the ban. When House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was recently asked whether she supports reinstating the 1994 ban, the Speaker reportedly responded No I think we need to enforce the laws we have right now. We agree with the Speaker and the Majority Leader.
The same sentiment has also been expressed to you by sixty-five (65) Congressional Democrats in a letter dated March 17, 2009. In that letter, they astutely noted, It is hard to believe the ban would be effective in controlling crime by well-funded international drug traffickers, who regularly use grenade launchers, anti-tank rockets, and other weapons that are not available on the civilian market in the United States.
The Honorable Eric Holder
Under Title 18, Section 924 of the U.S. Code, knowingly transferring a firearm to an individual who will use that firearm to commit a violent or drug-related crime is already a federal offense. Similarly, it is also a felony to possess a firearm for the purpose of furthering drug trafficking. At a recent Congressional hearing, Kumar Kibble, the Deputy Director of the Immigration and Custom Enforcements Office of Investigations, testified that the Patriot Act included changes to Title 18, Section 554 of the U.S. Code, which improved federal authorities ability to investigate and prosecute illegal smuggling.
As Attorneys General, we are committed to defending our constituents constitutional rights including their constitutionally-protected right to keep and bear arms. This duty is particularly important in light of the United States Supreme Courts recent Heller decision, which held that the Second Amendment elevated above all other interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home. The high courts landmark decision affirmed that individual Americans have a constitutionally-protected right to keep and bear arms. We, the undersigned Attorneys General, are staunch defenders of that right and believe that it should not be encroached upon without sound justification and a clear law enforcement purpose.
We are pleased that the Administration appears to conform with the Congressional leaderships position on this very important issue. Importantly, the White House website no longer calls for the reinstatement of the 1994 ban. In fact, it expressly acknowledges the great conservation legacy of Americas hunters. We share that appreciation for hunters and are committed to defending our Second Amendment rightswhich is why we believe that additional gun control laws are unnecessary. Instead, authorities need to enforce laws that are already in place.
As Attorneys General, we look forward to working with you and President Obama on commonsense law enforcement solutions to transnational crime. We stand ready to cooperate and collaborate on crime prevention and law enforcement initiatives that will protect our constituents, crack down on transnational crime, and help reduce narcotics consumption in the United States. But, for the reasons explained in this letter, we do not believe that reinstating the 1994 assault weapons ban will solve the problems currently facing the United States or Mexico.
Good for them.
Only 23? How sad.
Colorado did, but neither carolina or virginia? What the hell?
Blah, the left is making way too much room down the east coast.
It’s not surprising to see flaming socialist Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal isn’t on the list.
I see My Tennessee is missing also
North Carolina is run by Dems at the state level and has been for years. They adore Obama.
Where in the ever-luvin-blue-eff is Tennessee! GAH!
New mission, DESTROY, utterly, the TN AG. No way in H! should he not have been a signatory!
But wouldn’t he be a Bredesen appointee? Phil’s so busy kissing Obama’s ass I’m sure his AG is right in there with him.
Be a great country.
Tennessee is one of the free states for sure.
Our legislature is moving gun laws in the right direction. Overriding Bredesen’s foolish and autocratic vetoes. He only looks even more the fool I’ve always know him to be.
Sorry urban America, rural and suburban America do not have the same prejudices you have (as a result of your lax law enforcement against social miscreants) against gun ownership. These Chicago big-city types had better get that into their heads pronto.
That is, unless their goal is to escalate civil unrest into something much, much worse. Remember that once we lose the right to keep and bear arms, the government can do anything to us. This is only tenable if one assumes the government is made up of pure and sinless people who fear God and love their neighbor perfectly.
Believe me, you do not want people who disregard God and regard man as little more than an animal having this kind of power over you.
So the question becomes, how much do you trust your government?
I don’t trust my government as far as I can throw it, and I can’t throw it very far. But the Second Amendment affirms the ability of The People to abolish an unsound government, and so the government has no authority to rule against the Second Amendment. Just as roaches have no authority to rule against the Orkin man. As long as government is subordinate to the basic freedoms of The People, and works for The People, government has no reason to fear the Second Amendment. It is the spare tire, the insurance policy of a free state. As long as we are free, the Second Amendment is merely an academic affirmation of a God-given right. When we are not free, the Second Amendment is a reminder of our duty and our ability.
Uh, South Carolina is on the list.
Nothing from New England, the upper midwest, the far west, etc. Wimps!
I hope you are reading this, President Obama. You are a servant of the people. Not a master. Get it? You want to be the greatest of all? Strive to be servant of all.
LOL - Now there's a keeper! The problem is, the government now believes it's the Orkin man, and we're the roaches.
We would let them live there. But once they started crapping all over the kitchen, well, something has to be done.