'Fast And Furious' Was Gun Control Scheme

From CBS News ~ Documents obtained by CBS News show that the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) discussed using their covert operation "Fast and Furious" to argue for controversial new rules about gun sales.

In Fast and Furious, ATF secretly encouraged gun dealers to sell to suspected traffickers for Mexican drug cartels to go after the "big fish." But ATF whistleblowers told CBS News and Congress it was a dangerous practice called "gunwalking," and it put thousands of weapons on the street. Many were used in violent crimes in Mexico. Two were found at the murder scene of a U.S. Border Patrol agent.

ATF officials didn't intend to publicly disclose their own role in letting Mexican cartels obtain the weapons, but emails show they discussed using the sales, including sales encouraged by ATF, to justify a new gun regulation called "Demand Letter 3". That would require some U.S. gun shops to report the sale of multiple rifles or "long guns." Demand Letter 3 was so named because it would be the third ATF program demanding gun dealers report tracing information.

Share |

Calvey: Obama Policy 'Insult to all Americans'

Fifth District congressional candidate Kevin Calvey, an Army National Guard prosecutor, said today that the Obama Administration’s recently-announced policies regarding interrogations will result in more deaths of US military personnel and civilians.

In particular, Calvey blasted two Obama policies: first, removal of responsibility for high-value terrorist interrogations from the CIA to a newly-created White House interrogation team, which apparently will give Miranda-style rights warnings to terrorists before interrogating them; and second, the recent decision by Attorney General Eric Holder to investigate and possibly prosecute CIA interrogators merely for doing their jobs.

“For the Administration to take our Constitutionally-protected rights and give them to foreign terrorists is an insult to all Americans,” said Calvey. “It is throwing pearls before swine.”

Calvey deployed to Iraq during the troop surge in 2007-2008. He was awarded the Bronze Star Medal for his mission prosecuting al Qaeda leaders and other terrorists in the Iraqi court system.

Calvey’s job involved working with military interrogators, FBI agents and Iraqi court personnel to bring terrorists to justice in the Iraqi system.

“I have personally looked into the eyes of over 100 terrorists,” said Calvey. “They hate us and hate our system of government. You will not impress them by giving them the same rights as other Americans. They will merely take it as a sign of weakness.

“This is war, not a US court process. Our enemies are NOT entitled to the rights protected in our Constitution. The only rights to which they are entitled are the rights we choose to give them. Currently, their only rights are the due process rights contained in the Fourth Geneva Convention, which are a legal review within a few days of detention to determine whether they are a security threat, followed by a similar review every six months. Not a trial, not Miranda rights.

“Furthermore, prosecuting CIA interrogators merely for doing their jobs will chill our nation’s ability to continue to collect intelligence on the terrorists who would destroy us. It’s questionable enough that the Administration wants to inhibit future interrogations, but it is a betrayal of loyal Americans to seek prosecution of those who were merely serving our country as CIA interrogators.”

Share |

DOJ Backs Off 'Offical English' Challenge

From The Washington Times ~ Oklahoma's bipartisan congressional delegation this week accused the Obama Justice Department of trying to strong-arm the state into rejecting an English-only referendum by saying it could cost Oklahoma federal funding.

In a stern letter to Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., the lawmakers - six Republicans and one Democrat - said Justice officials were meddling in Oklahoma affairs when they issued a pre-emptive April warning letter, well before any potential violation of law would take place.

"The Civil Rights Division letter was dubiously timed at the peak of legislative debate rather than in response to a particular state action," the delegation wrote to Mr. Holder on Tuesday, questioning whether Oklahoma was being singled out and asking what funds would be jeopardized.

But the Justice Department says Oklahoma lawmakers themselves have already cleared up the problem by changing the referendum in April to remove any conflicts with federal law.

"The proposal appropriately allows languages other than English when required by federal law and, as long as recipients comply with those laws, federal funds are not at risk," said Justice spokesman Alejandro Miyar.

The Oklahoma Legislature voted in April to ask state voters next year to vote on requiring official state actions be conducted in English and preventing individuals from suing to have state services provided in languages other than English.

In her April warning letter, Loretta King, the acting assistant attorney general for the Civil Rights Division, said limiting services could amount to discrimination against persons based on their national origin. She said state programs could lose federal subsidies if they run afoul of discrimination laws.

Mr. Miyar said the letter was designed to let Oklahoma officials know an early version of their legislation might have conflicted with federal law. A week after the letter was sent, the Legislature approved a different version that doesn't conflict with federal laws, and he said that has cleared up any problem.

Still, the Oklahoma lawmakers, led by Republican Sen. James M. Inhofe, said that by acting even before lawmakers had passed their measure, much less before voters had approved the referendum, the administration was acting outside of the civil rights rules the Supreme Court laid out in a 2001 ruling.

"This was not a letter aimed at enforcing actually occurring violations," the lawmakers said.

The lawmakers questioned why Oklahoma received a warning when other states have similar language requirements. State Rep. Randy Terrill, a Republican and sponsor of the referendum, said the letter was an effort to "blackmail" the state.

"The DOJ's argument is legally unsound and tries to equate English-language laws with national-origin discrimination. No court in the country has ever issued a ruling that supports the DOJ's specious legal claims," he said.

Mr. Miyar said Oklahoma's original bill had singled out a Clinton administration executive order as lacking binding authority on states, and Ms. King's letter was intended to alert Oklahoma that other federal laws also apply.

"This was the only English-only bill that we had seen in which Executive Order 13166 was specifically mentioned - and that's the reason it was important to clarify to Oklahoma that Title VI is the federal law that asserts the requirement for recipients to provide reasonable access to [limited English proficiency] individuals," Mr. Miyar said.

Share |

Outrage Voiced Over DOJ's Threat To Penalize Oklahoma If 'Official English' Approved; Terrill Says It's 'Abusive...unjustified...an intrusion'

U. S. Attorney General Eric Holder's Department of Justice has threatened Oklahoma with a loss of federal funding if voters approve an "Official English" constitutional amendment in what's being characterized as an outrageous attempt to intimidate citizens of Oklahoma.

'We will not be blackmailed'

Rep. Randy Terrill, R-Moore, ardent supporter of the measure and a crusader against illegal immigration, told KTOK's Reid Mullins this morning he was "incredibly surprised" by the letter and its contents. He said the attack on Oklahoma appears to be unprecedented.

Terrill said he's curious what "triggered the letter." He said the letter is "abusive...unjustified...an unwarranted intrusion" into the affairs of the state.

"Can the federal government tell a state what to do?" Terrill asked, while saying it can not.

“Absolutely appalling, it is outrageous, it clearly constitutes a threat.

“It is abusive and singles out the state of Oklahoma and therefore is unjustified and an intrusion into the sovereignty of the state of Oklahoma.

“My message would be simple—the federal government needs to get its nose out of our business," Terrill added. "We will not be blackmailed. We will not be intimidated. We will not be extorted.”

Members of the state's congressional delegation sent a letter to Holder seeking justification and clarification for the letter, from the Department of Justice, sent to Attorney General Drew Edmondson.

"It is entirely unacceptable for the federal government to try to strong-arm the state by threatening to remove federal funding,'' Republican Senator Jim Inhofe said.

In the letter, Inhofe and other members of the state's delegation also stated that the letter to Edmonson was "dubiously timed'' at the peak of the debate over the issue.

"We find it extremely disconcerting that the State of Oklahoma has been targeted,'' the delegation wrote.

Citing a Supreme Court ruling that speaks to such "unprecedented intrusion" by DOJ, the lawmakers also asks Holder to explain what triggered the letter. They also cite similar laws passed in other states.

"Have these states, or any of the dozens of states, cities and counties with official English policies, been accused by the Department of Justice to be in violation ... or formally threatened with funding termination?" they asked.

The letter also was signed by Senator Tom Coburn; Republican Reps. John Sullivan, Frank Lucas, Tom Cole and Mary Fallin, and Democrat Dan Boren.

The DOJ etter advises Edmondson that "implementation of this [English-only] amendment may conflict with Oklahoma's obligations to protect the civil rights of limited English proficient (LEP) persons."

Dated April 14 from Acting Assistant Attorney General Loretta King, the letter states, "As you know, recipients of federal financial assistance must comply with various civil rights statutes, including Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964…which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin."

The letter continues, "State agencies and other entities in Oklahoma that receive federal financial assistance thus would be precluded by federal law from abiding by an English-only requirement where it conflicts with their obligations under Title VI."

The congressional delegation's letter to Holder points out that several other states have passed similar legislation and asks if they too have been "accused by the Department of Justice to be in violation with Title VI, or formally threatened with funding termination."

The delegation letter asks for an explanation for what prompted the DOJ to write the state of Oklahoma on this issue and seeks explanation for what funds would be eliminated should Oklahomans pass the English only amendment.

Share |

Behenna Case Just The Tip Of The Iceberg? Prosecutorial Misconduct Becoming A Major Issue

While Army Lt. Michael Behenna of Edmond sits in a cell at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, serving time in the death of an Al Qaida operative in Iraq, it's becoming evident that his is just the latest in a string of controversial cases in which alleged prosecutorial misconduct and withheld evidence played a major role.

The Behenna case has shaken confidence in the military justice system and fueled what, by all accounts, is a flood of protest calls, letters and emails to members of Congress, the Army and others from across the country. For more information, go to http://www.defendmichael.wordpress.com/.

Behenna's conviction by a military tribunal is being appealed based on evidence from the prosecution's own forensics expert that was withheld from Behenna's defense team and the members of the tribunal until his trial was over. The expert told Behenna's attorneys he agrees with Behenna's version of events that resulted in the death of Ali Mansur, believed to be one of the leaders of an attack on Behenna's platoon that resulted in two of his men being killed. The prosecution claimed Behenna executed Mansur; the defense said Behenna, earlier fast-tracked for promotion because of his combat leadership skills and excellent service record, shot Mansur when Mansur attacked him as he was being questioned, and the forensics expert hired by the prosecution agreed with Behenna's account. The prosecution did not call its own expert to testify, but the expert, Dr. Herbert L. MacDonell, told defense attorneys of his concern about the evidence being withheld. An appeal by Behenna's attorneys resulted in the trial judge recommending a reduction in the 25 year sentence to 18 years; that decision will be made by the Convening Authority (Army general) within a couple of months.

The Legal Definition Of Prosecutorial Misconduct: "Failing to disclose evidence that might tend to exonerate the defendant."

While attention is increasingly focused on the Behenna case by military associations, veterans groups, bloggers and legal experts, some federal judges have taken steps to correct what they see as prosecutorial misconduct in several cases. Ironically, Behenna's mother, Vicki Behenna, is a federal prosecutor in Oklahoma City. His father, Scott, is a retired special agent with the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation.

The Senator Ted Stevens case in Alaska is only the latest example, one in which Judge Emmet Sullivan threw out Stevens’ conviction and launched a criminal contempt investigation against a half-dozen federal prosecutors, calling their actions “shocking and disturbing.”

Attorney General Eric Holder announced Tuesday he’s replacing the head of the office that investigates misconduct by Justice Department attorneys, just a day after Sullivan publicly complained about the unit’s slow pace. But other federal judges, too, are complaining about the work done by Justice Department prosecutors.

• Federal Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly recently removed a Justice Department lawyer from a Guantanamo detainee case for flouting several deadlines, then lambasted his supervisor for submitting a “shockingly revisionist” sequence of events to the court.

• In Miami last month, federal Judge Alan Gold complained of "flagrant violations" by prosecutors who did not disclose the existence of secret recordings of a defense lawyer for a doctor charged with prescription fraud.

• Another federal judge in Washington, John Bates, last year cited a failure to turn over evidence as he ordered a new trial for a man convicted of illegal business dealings with Iran. Bates said he had “grave concerns” about the government’s actions, which “severely prejudiced” the defendant’s fair trial rights.

• And in a separate Gitmo case, Sullivan also lashed out at the government, vowing that “someone’s going to pay a price” for withholding evidence.

What’s remarkable about several of those cases is that judges – usually loath to interfere in the mechanics of the prosecution or the defense — took the dramatic step of removing Justice Department lawyers, or simply throwing out verdicts in cases that began during the prior administration. This repeated criticism delivered to DOJ attorneys suggests they are facing a credibility gap, particularly before judges in the Capital—and perhaps elsewhere in the country as well—that could have profound effects in a variety of other cases.

Attorneys said that in the wake of the Stevens imbroglio, prosecutions of public officials, undertaken by Justice’s Public Integrity Section, are likely to face particular scrutiny from judges and defense lawyers.

Share |

Holder Backs Off Gun Control Stance

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 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.

Share |

Anti-Gun Legislation DOA, Says Democrat

From The Hill ~ Gun-rights supporters in the Democratic Party are putting to rest any doubt over who holds sway in Congress with a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder warning him not to try to reinstate an assault-weapons ban.

Sixty-five Democrats signed the letter, a show of force with implications for several other issues, including a bill to grant the District of Columbia a vote in the House.

“Now we know there are 65 pro-gun Democrats,” said Rep. Mike Ross (D-Ark.). “When you add up all the pro-gun Republicans and the pro-gun Democrats, that or any other anti-gun legislation is DOA.”

He added, “You could safely assume we’d also have the votes on the D.C. issue.”

Republicans and the National Rifle Association want to add an amendment to the D.C. voting rights bill that would wipe out most of the District’s gun laws. The bill is stalled by the fear that the NRA would go after any centrist Democrat who votes for a procedural motion to prevent the addition of the gun amendment.

D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty has said District residents might accept the gun provisions in exchange for getting voting rights in the House. But that provoked a split with the District’s delegate, Eleanor Holmes Norton (D), who rejects any notion of giving in on the gun issue.

Likewise, gun-rights supporters in the Democratic Caucus have shown no willingness to buck the NRA on the D.C. bill issue, according to leadership aides.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), who is shepherding the bill for leadership, has said he’s “hopeful” he can schedule a vote on the bill by the end of next week. He said including the NRA-backed gun amendment is “part of the discussion.”

But the bill would still face severe obstacles even with the gun amendment. Despite the addition, Republicans won’t vote for D.C. voting rights, which they claim to be unconstitutional. Unless Norton urged them to support it, most liberals and members of the Congressional Black Caucus would vote no. The “no” votes of Republicans, liberals and CBC members would likely sink the bill.

Beneath the surface, however, some shifts can be detected. The measure of pro-gun support in the Democratic Caucus last year was the 65 Democrats who signed an amicus brief in a lawsuit to toss out the District’s handgun ban.

Twelve Democrats who signed the amicus brief didn’t sign the Ross letter. Both were heavily promoted by the NRA. But another 12 freshman Democrats — about one-third of the freshman Democrats — replaced them on the list.

Rep. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.) sent a similar letter to Hoyer and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).

The pro-gun support also has implications for the appropriations process, where Democratic leaders will have to decide whether to continue Republican riders that called for the rapid destruction of information the government collects on gun purchases. And gun-control groups are interested in passing a bill that requires background checks on gun purchases made at gun shows.

Share |

Boren, Task Force Oppose 'Assault Weapon' Ban

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Congressman Dan Boren, (OK-2) and U.S. Congressman Paul Broun, (GA-10), Co-Chairs of the Second Amendment Task Force (SATF) in the U.S. House of Representatives, released the following statements regarding Attorney General Eric Holder’s recent comments on the possibility of the Obama Administration seeking to reinstate a ban on sales of assault weapons.

Congressman Boren: “The Second Amendment Task Force is adamantly opposed to reinstating the ban on the sale of assault weapons as it clearly would demonstrate a violation of United States citizens’ right to keep and bear arms. The Constitution absolutely does not outline any provision to restrict ownership of a gun belonging to a specific category. I will diligently work with my colleagues on the Second Amendment Task Force to defeat any form of legislation in Congress that poses a threat to the Second Amendment.”

Congressman Paul Broun: “The Attorney General’s recent comments about reinstating the ‘assault weapons’ ban are extremely troubling since a ban clearly violates our Constitutional right to bear arms. The Second Amendment Task Force opposes the discussed ban and will fight any attempts that infringe on our Second Amendment rights.”

The Second Amendment Task Force was created in the 111th Congress to monitor legislation regarding the Second Amendment in the U.S. House of Representatives. It acts as a unified and proactive force to promote legislation that protects the Second Amendment and to fight legislation that poses a threat to citizens’ Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

Boren is a member of the board of directors of the National Rifle Association.

Share |

Obama, Holder Begin Gun Control Push

From ABC News ~ The Obama administration will seek to reinstate the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004 during the Bush administration, Attorney General Eric Holder said today.

"As President 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," Holder told reporters.

Holder said that putting the ban back in place would not only be a positive move by the United States, it would help cut down on the flow of guns going across the border into Mexico, which is struggling with heavy violence among drug cartels along the border.

[Despite the emphasis on "assault weapons" as instruments of destruction, FBI data does not support the contention they are used regularly to commit crimes. Furthermore, the definition of "assault weapons" as used by Holder et al includes semi-automatic hunting rifles.]

Share |

Inhofe Explains 'No' Vote On Eric Holder

Senator Jim Inhofe said today he will vote against the confirmation of Eric Holder as attorney general because Holder has opposed the right of citizens to keep and bear arms and helped pardon felons in the Clinton Administration.

Said Inhofe: "I believe I am speaking on behalf of Americans who value their 2nd amendment personal right to own their own firearms. I also believe I am speaking on behalf of Americans who favor justice over political patronage. Finally, I believe I am speaking on behalf of Americans who realize we are in a War on Terror and want to continue the strong efforts to bring terrorists to justice. I am opposed to the appointment of Eric Holder to be the next Attorney General of the United States.
I take particular interest in this nomination, because I, as well as the voters of the State of Oklahoma, feel strongly that the rights conferred upon us by the Second Amendment of the Constitution guarantee an individual freedom that no government regulation can take away. Eric Holder’s record and his true beliefs about the Second Amendment are clear.

"In a brief filed in the Heller case, Holder joined other past Department of Justice officials by saying, 'The Second Amendment Does Not Protect Firearms Possession or Use That Is Unrelated To Participation In a Well-Regulated Militia' and that 'recognition of an expansive individual right to keep and bear arms for private purposes will make it more difficult for the government to defend present and future firearms laws.'

"That he is opposed to the right to keep and bear arms is bad enough, but I am also very uncomfortable with Mr. Holder’s judgment and record on pardons and clemency during the Clinton Administration. He apparently chose to circumvent the standard process by which all pardons are considered and granted, and clouded this process with the appearance of impropriety. If the pardon of Mark Rich was not impropriety, and I believe it was, then it was at the very least extreme negligence, and such negligence has no place in any level of government.

"Mark Rich, whom many label a tax evader, is in fact even more than that. Rich was indicted in 1983 on 65 counts of not only tax evasion, but also fraud, racketeering, and trading with the enemy. Rich fled to Switzerland before he could stand trial, which is perhaps the most egregious element of this case—he was a fugitive and a regular fixture on the FBI’s Ten Most Wanted List. And Holder recommended a pardon, bypassed the Department of Justice and the hundreds of individuals who worked to bring Mark Rich to justice, when the man who was being pardoned was not even willing to face the same justice system to which every other American must answer. In fact, Holder admitted during his confirmation hearing that he did not adequately acquaint himself with the facts of the case.

"The United States Senate should not allow such injustice to go unanswered.

"Equally egregious, Holder was deputy attorney general in an Administration which granted clemency to 16 members of the Armed Forces of National Liberation, the terrorist organization FALN. This is a group that carried out violent protests, set off bombs several times in New York City and Chicago and was convicted for conspiracies to commit robbery, bomb-making, and sedition. The Clinton Administration granted clemency despite opposition from the US Attorney’s office, FBI, and most importantly, the victims of FALN terrorist activities. This was Holder’s recommendation.

"For at least these reasons, I oppose the nomination of an individual who just doesn’t agree with Americans that I know. I will be voting a definitive no on the Holder nomination."

Share |

Coburn Likely To Oppose Holder Nomination

Senator Tom Coburn appears ready to oppose President Barack Obama’s choice of Eric Holder for attorney general because of his position on gun control and the Second Amendment.

Coburn, R-Muskogee, said Holder doesn't believe the Second Amendment grants the right to individuals to own guns. Holder signed a brief in the Heller case, decided by the Supreme Court, arguing that the right under the Second Amendment was a collective one, meant for state militias only.

Coburn sits on the Judiciary Committee, which is scheduled to vote next week on Holder’s nomination. Senate leaders had hoped to clear Holder this week, but Republicans delayed the committee vote.

Coburn questioned Holder about gun rights at a hearing last week. Holder told Coburn that, after the Supreme Court ruled in June that the Second Amendment guaranteed an individual right to own guns, options for restrictions had "narrowed.”

Coburn said he was concerned that Holder didn’t respond definitively to the question of whether he would defend state laws allowing people to carry concealed weapons.

Share |

Gun Owners Fear Obama Administration

From NewsMax ~ President-elect Barack Obama has a bad reputation regarding the Second Amendment right to bear arms, and it’s having a dramatic effect in gun and ammo retail outlets.

Gun sales across the country were up before Election 2008 – just in anticipation of a Barack Obama victory in the White House race. Now that the President-elect is poised to take the oath of office, guns are flying off the shelves.

“Sales of firearms, in particular handguns and semi-automatic hunting and target rifles, are fast outpacing inventory,” National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) president and CEO Stephen Sanetti disclosed in a statement to the media. “It’s clear that many people are concerned about possible gun bans under the incoming Congress and are reacting accordingly.”

For example, firearms sales in California jumped by a third from a year earlier -- from 99,396 to 132,599, according to the state Attorney General’s Office.

The Franklin Gun Shop outside Nashville, Tenn. sold more than 70 guns on Election Day, racking up the best sales day since the business opened. Also on Election Day, a Cheyenne, Wyoming, gun store set a one-day sales record – only to break that record the next day, according to a report by OneNewsNow.com.

Prior to Election Day, The New York Times reported a Pittsburgh-area merchant taking up to 30 calls daily for inquiries about buying assault rifles, a single-day record in Colorado for required background checks of gun buyers, and sales spiking as much as seven times in Houston gun stores.

So, has Barack Obama over the years said something or intimated anything by his record to cause this apparent panic?

Yes, in spades, maintains the National Rifle Association (NRA).

Read the entire story at www.newsmax.com.

Share |

Obama's AG Nominee A Gun-Grabber

From Newsmax ~ Barack Obama’s nomination of Eric Holder for attorney general will not sit well with advocates of Second Amendment rights — Holder has consistently championed stronger gun-control measures.

As deputy attorney general in the Bill Clinton administration from 1997 to 2001, Holder “was a strong supporter of restrictive gun control,” according to The Volokh Conspiracy, a Web site that focuses on the legal system and the courts.

He advocated federal licensing of handgun owners, a three-day waiting period on handgun sales, rationing handgun sales to no more than one per month, banning possession of handguns and so-called "assault weapons" by anyone under age 21, a gun show restriction bill that would have given the federal government the power to shut down all gun shows, and national gun registration.

“He also promoted the factoid that ‘Every day that goes by, about 12, 13 more children in this country die from gun violence’ — a statistic that is true only if one counts 18-year-old gangsters who shoot each other as ‘children,’” noted the Web site, founded by law professor Alexander Volokh.

After the 9/11 attacks, Holder wrote an opinion piece for The Washington Post arguing that a new law should give "the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms a record of every firearm sale." He also said prospective gun buyers should be checked against the secret "watch lists" compiled by various government entities.

Earlier this year, Holder — who would become the first African-American attorney general — co-signed an amicus brief in support of the District of Columbia’s ban on all handguns and on the use of any firearm for self-defense in the home.

Share |