Reaction to possible new Assault Weapons Ban

Roundup of some reaction to the widely reported remarks by Attorney General Eric Holder, indicating that the Obama Administration was looking to propose a new and improved AWB:

Rep. Broun (D-GA) blasts talk of new Assault Weapons Ban:

U.S. Rep. Paul Broun is shooting back at Attorney General Eric Holder for proposing a renewed ban on assault weapons.

Broun, R-Athens, who recently formed a bipartisan Second Amendment Task Force with Rep. Dan Boren, D-Okla., said in a news release that a ban on assault weapons is "extremely troubling since a ban clearly violates our constitutional right to bear arms."

Broun was responding to Holder's widely reported statement Wednesday that President Obama wants to bring back a Clinton-era ban on assault weapons.
...
Broun, an avid hunter who's known for his collection of mounted animals, does not believe the federal government should regulate firearms in any way. Such regulations are "a slippery slope" to violating the Second Amendment, spokeswoman Pepper Pennington said.

"You're limiting law-abiding citizens," Pennington said. "You're not getting to the criminals. You're not getting to the terrorists." ...

[Salt Lake Trib] Utah delegation balks at push for new AWB:

Utah congressmen are taking issue with the Obama administration's call for a new assault-weapons ban, saying it interferes with the public's right to bear arms and won't reduce crime.

The ban expired in 2004 after being in place for 10 years. In a news conference Thursday, Attorney General Eric Holder said: "As President [Barack] Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons."
...
Utah Reps. Jim Matheson, a Democrat, and Rob Bishop, a Republican, are part of a 10-member task force on gun rights in the House that almost immediately promised to stand in the way of any attempts at a new ban.

"It looks as though with this announcement we've been handed our first big fight," Matheson said.

"I hope this administration doesn't feel a need to resurrect every bad idea," Bishop said. "Bringing this useless ban back is a terrible idea, and we will vigorously oppose it with bipartisan backing."

[Dallas Morning News] Not surprisingly, Mexico approves:

MEXICO CITY – President Felipe Calderón said that his police and soldiers are dangerously outgunned because U.S. authorities are failing to stop the smuggling of high-powered weapons into Mexico. His attorney general called for more aggressive prosecutions of gun smugglers, saying that the U.S. constitutional right to bear arms doesn't protect them.

"The Second Amendment was not put there to arm foreign criminal groups," Attorney General Eduardo Medina Mora said.

Calderón has complained for two years that the U.S. isn't carrying its weight in the cross-border drug war, despite the fact that American drug users ultimately finance the cartels.
...
Calderón applauded Holder's announcement as "the first time ... in many years that the American government is starting to show more commitment."

Allow me to translate: Mexico will tell us what the Second Amendment means; Mexico's problems are all your fault, America; It's about time you American slackers started pulling your gun control weight, and until you do, you won't be the shining beacon of freedom like us Mexicans. Got it?

Examiner.com: Unintended consequences?

...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?

And a little backpedaling -- for now:

... With all this running for cover going on, it would be easy to lose focus on the jewel in the crown. So perhaps it would be helpful to once again review the words from the official White House website. Don't take my word for it--take theirs:

Obama and Biden...also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent.

So what was going on with Holder?

The guy just let us see the cards before everyone was ready.

Anyone who thinks we're not one highly publicized incident away from a reinvigorated full court press to ban semiautomatics and more is kidding themselves.