What will it be--a new 'assault weapon' ban, or a preserved Union?

February 27, 2:44 AMSt. Louis Gun Rights ExaminerKurt Hofmann

Previous Next

8 comments Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe

Get alerts when there is a new article from the St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.

Email Address   Include other special offers from Examiner.com Terms of Use

   The battle of Atlanta

Attorney General Eric Holder's statement Wednesday that a renewed, permanent (and unless I miss my guess, dramatically expanded) ban of so-called "assault weapons" is on the way created quite a stir.

As one might expect, my fellow gun rights advocates are digging in for a fight.

CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb, reacting to yesterday’s remarks by Obama’s Attorney General Eric Holder that the president will seek to reinstate the ban on semi-automatic firearms, said Obama “knew he was lying to the nation because his own website touted his plan to revive the gun ban and make it permanent.”

“We warned America that Obama’s ‘support’ for the Second Amendment was empty rhetoric,” he stated, “and now Holder’s disclosure has confirmed it. Obama was lying, and now gun rights may be dying.”

Equally predictably, the citizen disarmament lobby is already celebrating.

“Yesterday, Attorney General Eric Holder, in discussing the terrible gun violence being perpetrated in Mexico with guns purchased easily in the United States, talked directly about the need to restrict civilian access to military-style assault weapons.  We applaud Attorney General Holder for calling for action against assault weapons.  It is important to note that violence in Mexico is only part of the problem.  Since September 2004, assault weapons have cost the lives not just of citizens in our border nations: these weapons have taken a horrific toll right here at home.

In truth, I can't imagine that this is terribly surprising to anyone.  Neither Holder nor President Obama has ever deviated from support of every restrictive gun law ever to come up for discussion, and they have both, along with Vice President Biden, been explicitly supportive of a new AWB all along.

I have to wonder, though, if the administration has given sufficient thought to the stakes here.  I refer to the growing number of states (fourteen, at the moment) whose legislatures are in the process of deciding whether or not to forcefully remind the federal government of the meaning of the Tenth Amendment.  New Hampshire's proposed measure goes farther than most, in explicitly stating that certain federal government excesses (like an AWB, for example) would nullify any obligation on New Hampshire's part to remain in the Union.

Montana, in the meantime, has passed a bill in the House (now headed to the Senate) declaring federal firearms laws inapplicable to firearms and ammunition manufactured within the state of Montana, and not made available in interstate commerce.  This is, of course, completely consistent with the Constitution, but utterly anathema to proponents of an all-powerful federal government.

Do I honestly believe that any state is ready to secede over a new federal gun law, such as a new AWB, or H.B. 45?  Perhaps not, but does the Obama administration really have so little on its plate that it wants to take on an issue that arouses this much passion among the people who would oppose it?

----------

Come get your gun rights examined on Facebook

Something I forgot to mention is that the Gun Rights Examiners have a Facebook page, and we'd love for you to join us. 

----------

Gun Rights Examiners PR

Check out the press release.