Holder on Gun Policy

The Law Enforcement Alliance of America is reporting on Holder’s testimony before the Judiciary Committee two days ago:

Transcribing General Holder: “The position of the Administration is that there should be a basis for law enforcement to share information about gun purchases.” “… [It’s not] inconsistent to allow law enforcement agencies to share that kind of information, for that information to be retained and then to be shared by law enforcement.” “It seems incongruous to me that we would bar certain people from flying on airplanes because they are on the terrorist watch list and yet we would still allow them to posses weapons.”

So the Administration is on record as being in favor of denying Americans constitutional rights based on their presence on a secret government list, and quite probably based only on their sharing a name with someone who is on the list. Will Congress act here? Probably not. But I also wonder what kind of information sharing Holder thinks is allowed by law. The law is pretty clear that if someone passes the background check, the identifying information in the record is destroyed.

Related posts (automatically generated):

  1. Gillibrand on Tiahrt
  2. Apples and Oranges
  3. ATF Director Clarifies Trace Data

11 thoughts on “Holder on Gun Policy”

  1. Holder is no more a ‘General’ than Harlan Sanders was a ‘Colonel’. His job title is Attorney-General, it’s not a rank.

  3. I disagree. And General would not be the honorific for the Postmaster-General. Neither is General the title for the Surgeon-General, nor would it be ‘Surgeon’. In fact, it is ‘Admiral’. The correct honorific for (an) attorney-general is Mr. (or Ms.) Attorney-General.

    Janet Reno was the first AG I ever heard referred to as ‘General’, by Clinton, who was as illiterate as the media would have us think George Bush was. In this usage, ‘general’ is an adjective modifying the term ‘attorney’, ie the individual is the general (societies’, use, responsibility) attorney for a jurisdiction.

    http://www.bartleby.com/185/20.html

  4. What boggles me is the bass-ackwards-ness of it all. Holder sees the No-Fly List, a capricious, illegal, secretive government restriction on what ought to be a private enterprise, as justification for another giant, illegal government power-grab. Both are wrong, and ought to be scrapped, yesterday.

  5. Well since this is a press release, let me add my two cents. Based on my Stylebook, there is no rule for second usage of Attorney General. So for purposes of a release, there’s flexibility there. However, there is not flexibility in randomly adding in hyphens. Attorney-General is definitely wrong, as are Surgeon-General and Postmaster-General.

    On the usage of just General, there does not seem to be a clear cut answer. From my reading on the subject, the Solicitor General is referred to as “General [Last Name]” while being questioned by the justices. There seem to be arguments both for and against this usage, but it doesn’t change the fact that it is used in a formal setting. I also see former DOJ officials from as far back as the Reagan years using the term on second usage, and various folks claiming that the title has been shortened to General in state courts for decades.

  6. What would stop the gov’ment form putting every NRA member, republican, military etc on the watch list? That way they could in thier twisted thinking deny gun rights.

  8. Given the derivation of the military rank; I am OK with callign him General. The military rank evolved from Captain-General, after all.

  9. In re Say Uncle’s comment: Just got off the phone with Ted Deeds, LEAA COO/National Spokesperson. The remarks were part of the Q&A, not from the prepared statement. He told me where to look on C-SPAN to see for myself, but I don’t have a url–it’s the morning session for the 18th, starting at approx. 1 hr 11 min into the session. He will be emailing me a transcript on Monday and I’ll post further.

  10. “The law is pretty clear that if someone passes the background check, the identifying information in the record is destroyed.”

    So, how are we really supposed to believe that such laws have been adhered to at any stage since their enactment?

Comments are closed.