Halbrook Testimony on C-SPAN on Nominee Eric Holder for Attorney General
By David J. Theroux • Thursday January 22, 2009 7:06 PM PDT • 62 Comments
Here is Research Fellow Stephen P. Halbrook on C-SPAN on January 16th before the Senate Judiciary Committee, testifying against the confirmation of Eric Holder, Jr., for Attorney General of the U.S.
Dr. Halbrook’s full written testimony is available here. He is the author of the recent Independent Institute book, The Founders’ Second Amendment: Origins of the Right to Bear Arms, that has formed the basis for our Second Amendment Book Bomb as well as his earlier Amici Curiae Brief in the historic Supreme Court case of District of Columbia v. Heller on behalf of 55 members of the Senate, the Senate President, and 250 members of the House of Representatives.
Incredibly enough, in reporting on the hearings in his article, “Clinton Is Approved, but Vote on Holder Is Delayed” (reprinted here in the International Herald Tribune), David Stout of the New York Times not only fails to mention Dr. Halbrook’s testimony but actually makes the flatly erroneous claim that “No one has questioned Mr. Holder’s qualifications.”
Tags: Books, Civil Liberties, Constitution, Criminal Justice, Gun Control, Law, Personal Liberty, Politics, Presidential Power, Video 
I strongly support 2nd Amendment rights for individuals to bear arms.
Hugh W. Ellsaesser | Jan 23, 2009 | Reply
I strongly support 2nd Amendment rights for individuals to bear arms.
Ray Nedich | Jan 23, 2009 | Reply
Mr. Halbrook is entirely correct.
Robert Scott Dunning | Jan 24, 2009 | Reply
It is without doubt that the law abiding citizens of this country have the right to own guns as a means of self defense.
Mr. Holder is entitled to defend his interests with “sticks and stones” if he wishes to do so.
James Ayers | Jan 24, 2009 | Reply
Moustache looks gay (as does Holder’s).
David | Jan 24, 2009 | Reply
The article you linked, January 21st article, was written by ERIC LICHTBLAU?
BenJCarter | Jan 24, 2009 | Reply
Anyone who suggests that the Second Amendment is not an Individual Right, should likewise propose surrendering the individual rights in the 1st, 4th and 5th Amendments as well.
Lets see them surrender the right to Religion and Speech, the right to protection from Search and Seisure, and the right not to Incriminate ones-self.
Delaware
I support the right, based on the Federally enacted Second Amendment to legislate National laws concerning the right to Bear Arms, to carry those arms, except by persons prohibited, at home, at places that individuals have a right to be, and in public places. This means, if necessary, a NATIONAL PERMIT to carry Concealed. Many rights, in this ever shrinking USA, need to be nationalized.
Paul Z. Franczkowski | Jan 24, 2009 | Reply
I applaud Dr. Halbrook in detailing the concerns law abiding Americans have regarding this appointment.
In addition, several times during the election President Obama said he supports the 2nd Amendment. However, the recent decision on a replacement for Hillary Clinton in the Senate has raised concerns by Democrats. Why one may ask. The answer is that she is endorsed by the NRA and is also an hunter.
It will be a long 4 years.
Mike Landolfi | Jan 24, 2009 | Reply
I strongly support our 2nd Amendment Rights as An retired military this is part of my life!!
Roe T. Merry | Jan 24, 2009 | Reply
Keep me posted on current events.
Roe T. Merry | Jan 24, 2009 | Reply
I was opposed to Holder’s nomination because of his support for the Marc Rich pardon and his support of the so-called “Gorelick Line” that was enacted by Janet Reno’s Justice Department to keep the FBI and CIA from talking to each other. Now this. Wow! This guy just should NOT be our next Attorney-General!
F | Jan 24, 2009 | Reply
I am strongly against Holder’s nomination. In my personal opinion, anyone who is against any of the constitution is a traitor to the citizens of the United States. My ancestor, Benjamin Rush signed the Declaration of Independence and was a friend of Thomas Jefferson. They had the right idea to protect the citizens, showing more common sense than some in government today.
William Rush | Jan 24, 2009 | Reply
Ben,
Thank you for catching this.
To add further confusion to the matter, the New York Times has apparently taken down the original David Stout article and is now redirecting traffic to a different article by Eric Lichtblau. However, the original Stout article still appears where is was reprinted at the International Herald Tribune, and I have changed the link above in this regard.
David Theroux | Jan 24, 2009 | Reply
Mr. Halbrook suggested that millions of gun owners were rightly uncomfortable with the nomination of Mr. Holder.
I’d like to point out what an understatement that is, and point to a bigger albeit simpler issue.
Barack Obama nominated Holder knowing his entire history on the Second Amendment. Mr. Holder’s history in regard to the second amendment is one of attack, undermine, and diminishment. Mr. Holder would be the highest law enforcement officer in the nation, and must acknowledge that our Constitution is the supreme law of the land.
I think that what is the most worrisome of all is that our President swore these words: “that I will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
When the oath of office of the President of the United States means so little, it is a worrisome situation indeed.
Carl Dick | Jan 24, 2009 | Reply
In agreement with earlier comments. Next candidate please. Preferably someone who believes in preserving the individual rights of citizens instead of taking them away, Waco style.
RDP | Jan 24, 2009 | Reply
I strongly support the Second Amendment as an individuals right to keep and bear arms. This is not a right granted, but affirmed by the Second Amendment. The right to self defense predates the Bill of Rights. Only through gun control, ironically, were Blacks and poor of the south kept in check in the early 20th century. Gun control is both sexist and racist. I can’t imagine any Black person, including Eric Holder, to be for any gun control laws considering the massive harm and grievance is has caused to so many poor citizens and Black people of our country. Without a doubt, the restriction of guns and arms to these folks resulted in many atrocities against a race of people without their ability to guard, defend or fight back effectively against those that wished them harm.
The Second Amendment is necessary of and for a free state. Never give in to so many restrictions on firearm ownership, lest it lead to confiscation and erosion of your other human rights.
Vernon Jenewein | Jan 24, 2009 | Reply
Likewise I oppose Holder being appointed as Attorney General. I also oppose Geithner as Treasury Secretary. We have to have serious concerns about what the electorate has bestowed upon this country. We must be strong and gain more strength to oppose and win against these destroyers of liberty for the next four years. The 2010 elections will be key to stopping this onslaught.
Frank Luarde | Jan 25, 2009 | Reply
Almost all of the persons pushing for gun control or amendments making change to the 2nd Amendment have armed security agents, to protect them, or they are exempt from any firearm laws that may be put into law.
Mike | Jan 25, 2009 | Reply
Our 2nd Amendment, we have the right to keep and bear arms PERIOD!! Let no one take that right away. End of story. Get it you anti-gun liberals!!!!
roger gagnon | Jan 25, 2009 | Reply
Stephen Halbrook is absolutely correct in all aspects of his Second Amendment support. After 3 tours in Vietnam and then retiring from work as a police officer, I firmly believe that all legally qualified citizens be able to possess firearms of their choice, not those “allowed” by the “government.” ANYONE IN GOVERNMENT WHO WOULD RESTRICT THE SECOND AMENDMENT SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE, WITHOUT THEIR PENSIONS FOR LIFE AFTER SERVING ONE TERM IN OFFICE.
ERIC K | Jan 25, 2009 | Reply
If elected officials attempt to infringe upon the Second Amendment, they should be disbarred without any pension. Lifetime pensions for serving 1 term is the height of hypocrisy. There should be no ability to amend the Second Amendment as written. No government restrictions should be imposed whatsoever, on firearms or ammunition! All of these restrictions cost a lot of money, as do unwarranted pensions. Eliminate those items and watch the effect on the national debt. Require a 20-year service period or disability in the line of duty to receive a pension, just as all the rest of America must comply to. Then watch the debt plummet. We get taxed so the government officials can vote themselves a raise. What hypocrisy, and we sit and watch. Remove them NOW!
ERIC K | Jan 25, 2009 | Reply
This is just another of the pieces Mr. Obama is putting in place so he can implement his Great Socialist Society (no more Great Society per LBJ—its not enough to be a hard core Marxist).
Mr. Obama knows full well that this clown is a thug in a lawyers suit, just like himself! The only question that really remains is what us Serfs are going to have to do to get Government back under control.
bob | Jan 25, 2009 | Reply
The democrats routinely rewrite history; why would you not expect them to attempt to rewrite
the Second Amendment? The Obama/Holder combination is their current best hope.
teeward
Terry E. Ward | Jan 25, 2009 | Reply
“Anyone who suggests that the Second Amendment is not an Individual Right, should likewise propose surrendering the individual rights in the 1st, 4th and 5th Amendments as well.”
What can I say but AMEN!!!
R. Byers | Jan 25, 2009 | Reply
The right of all citizens to bear arms establishes a fundamental balance of power.
Our founders understood all too clearly that an unarmed populace is powerless in the face of a corrupt or militarily assertive government.
I suggest the book A Long Way Gone, memoirs of a boy soldier from Sierra Leone, which describes what it is like to live in an environment where those with guns do anything they want to those who cannot protect themselves. We cannot deny our nature or the corruptive influence of unchecked power.
“...those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it.”
Stephen R. Paul | Jan 26, 2009 | Reply
The Second Amendment protects the rest of our rights and freedoms we enjoy in this the greatest and most Blessed nation on earth. Fight the good fight!
Joe Wind | Jan 26, 2009 | Reply
Mr. Halbrook represents us well. If one doubts the long term objectives of anti-2nd ammendment rights, they need only review an abosolutely draconian bill, H.R. 45 introduced on January 6, 2009 by Mr. Rush. This bill should be read by all who value their gun rights and personal privacy. It is my understanding that the bill has been referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
Paul L. Barrows DVM, PhD | Jan 26, 2009 | Reply
Registration only leads to confiscation. See Nazi Germany before WWII. Holder must Not be Approved because he obviously is Warped in his interpretations of Law. He can’t even recognize the validity of the 2nd Amendment. How is he qualified to interpret even more complex items of law?
He reminds me of the Secretary of the Treasury Nominee not paying a few thousand dollars in back income taxes. I don’t want someone so broke or bogus running our Treasury Dept.
William Richard Clipson, University of Alabama Graduate, Eagle Scout, attended 1967 World Boy Scout Jamboree in Idaho.
Richard Clipson | Jan 26, 2009 | Reply
President Obama has raised his hand and pledged to protect and defend the Constitution of the U.S. In there it says that everyone has the right to own and carry a firearm. Now we will find out if he is a honorable and honest man.
Rod Marler | Jan 26, 2009 | Reply
Let us not forget the new bill on the registration and tracking of all firearms that is supported by Holder, requires us to give up our 4th amendment rights.
All of this constitutional discussion however may be a moot point, as Obama is calling for a new declaration of independence with a new constitution that would resemble the Lisbon Treaty(spelling?), and that would have absolutely no bill of rights. The people of this country would have only privelages give to them via the government that can be given or taken away at will, including the right to be able to have a job and eat, to speka, to practice the religion of their choice or no religion at all, their choice to attend services, etc.
The biggest problem here, is politics should be PUBLIC SERVICE, as it was intended to, it is NOT a CAREER! These politicians seem to think that the people of this country exist to provide them with power, money, and position, when the real purpose of them is to provide the people of this country with enforcement of their rights and the will of the people.
When the King of England, began imposing draconian law upon us, we took up arms and got rid of him and his country. NEVER FORGET. Without the people, the government can not exist.
Michael Dooley | Jan 26, 2009 | Reply
How sad it is that the United States has elected a President who has a socialist agenda, appoints an Attorney General who wants to reduce our rights and a Treasury Secretary who hasn’t paid his taxes for years. I think we all need to wake up before there are no rights left.
Gerry Johnstone | Jan 26, 2009 | Reply
I think that what is the most worrisome of all is that our President swore these words: “that I will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
When the oath of office of the President of the United States means so little, it is a worrisome situation indeed.
*****
This statement derived from above and I ask but one question:
“At what point does a man become a traitor to his country and thereof to dishonor the Constitution he has given his word his word to protect?” Then I ask you, one and all, what should be his penalty?
Jaime Cancio | Jan 26, 2009 | Reply
Take a look at what gun control has done to the law abiding people and their safety from violent crimes in Canada, England, and other countries that have already enacted such laws, crime rates escalated shortly there after. Use the laws we already on the books to prosecute the criminals that use guns illegally.
Manny Carter | Jan 26, 2009 | Reply
In my opinion, nominee Holder’s beliefs are so anti-Second Amendment he should be brought before a Grand Jury, and charged with treason.
Life Member
Mark Novak | Jan 26, 2009 | Reply
Under Amendment Two of the United States Constitution the right of the people to keep and bear arms is assured. Therefore any law or regulation that denies that is unconstitutional.
Because the courts have hedged on this we need juries to apply the United States Constitution by refusing to convict anyone who is charged with violating any unconstitutional law that denies the right to keep and BEAR arms. In other words you have a Constitutional right to bear arms if you choose to or carry a gun!!
Bob Albright | Jan 26, 2009 | Reply
The United States (or should I say Un-United) is starting to act like a 3rd world country where our rights are being taken away daily. I served my country for 20 years in the military to keep our country from becoming what it is becoming. All I can say is this: “Whoever comes into my home and tries to take away my right to keep and bear arms, will not leave my home.” Thomas Jefferson once said: “Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government . . .” We may have to do this people, so get ready.
Roberto | Jan 27, 2009 | Reply
It would be a good idea if we all took a look at the first ten amendments and realized that rather than describe them as a Bill Of Rights, we understand what they really are—A Bill of Prohibitions against government actions. The second amendment prohibits governments of all jurisdictions from INFRINGING on a citizens unalienable right to keep and bear arms. It’s not about what citizens can do, but about what governments CANNOT DO.
Joe | Jan 27, 2009 | Reply
Bob Albright—Brilliant strategy. Of course I have been excused from juries because I admitted this position during the preliminary jury selection process.
Joe | Jan 27, 2009 | Reply
We have to continue to pass this on, and keep this nut job Holder out of this position.
Gary Halpin | Jan 28, 2009 | Reply
I, like thousands in 1968, took an oath during the Vietnam War, as I am sure many of the people in my age group did (60). The oath, . . . I solemnly swear to defend the Constitution of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA from those that would seek to destroy it, domestic and abroad. This holds true now as then. I cannot call American any low life who takes an oath for the selfish reasons of political gain and considers that oath, . . . just words in the air.
LEE | Jan 28, 2009 | Reply
I strongly support the 2nd Amendment and will lay down my life before they take OR register my guns. Hopefully if they try that Texas will decide to secede.
Scott Fletcher | Jan 30, 2009 | Reply
“Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety. Nor are they likely to end up with either.”
~ Benjamin Franklin
Joanne | Jan 31, 2009 | Reply
For Holder to be appointed is tantamount to destruction of all of our Constitutional Rights. My family has been in this Country since prior to 1700 and I have owned and used firearms regularly since the age of nine. I shot my first deer at that age and was taught to shoot at an all-boys military school at the age of seven! Myself and a group of over two million people will march on Washington en masse to prevent Holder’s appointment to any cabinet post. If the people in the House and Senate think that this isn’t true then watch the coming blast of information from numerous organizations as to individual rights, most especially the Second Amendment and the upholding in the Heller case by the Supreme Court to bring the deluge of people and legal wrangle hold that gets put upon this government. We will inundate the House and the Senate with so many bills they won’t have the opportunity to accomplish anything. This is a country of the people, for the people and BY THE PEOPLE! We will not stand idly by THIS time as before. We have been preparing since November 4, 2008 for this, surprise!
Arthur L. Mackey Jr. | Jan 31, 2009 | Reply
The biggest problem is that our new president would even consider a person who seems to know so little about our Constitution. This man does not deserve ANY consideration for this position.
Ron | Feb 1, 2009 | Reply
Hello Mr. Rush,
I also support the 2nd Amendment and I am a collector of Lewis & Clark memorabilia. I was wondering if you had anything that you could share about your Great-grandad when he trained Meriwether Lewis in 1802/3 Philadelphia.
Sincerely,
J. Litten
J. Litten | Feb 1, 2009 | Reply
If Holder gets in, we can probably expect our country to be in another revolutionary war at some point in the near future. With the socialist people now running the country, we may end up there even without Holder’s help. This saddens me greatly on one hand. . . On the other hand, a great many people in this country including myself, are quite ready, and quite able to fight, just as many people in the past have, for the rights guaranteed to each U.S. citizen by our Constitution. We will not be disarmed no matter what law is passed. If this government refuses to honor our Constitution, then we the armed people will remove them by force if necessary. That is one of the reasons our forefathers gave us the right to keep and bear arms by the way, to remove a tyrannical government.
Scott | Feb 1, 2009 | Reply
I’m from Wyoming
Woody | Feb 1, 2009 | Reply
Where can I find the info on Obama wanting a new Declaration of Independence and Constitution?
Ron Ellington | Feb 2, 2009 | Reply
Ron,
Obama is on record for wanting a new Declaration of Independence and Constitution, based on a 2001 radio interview on WBEZ in Chicago. And his selection of people in leadership roles in his White House indicates his having a worldview that ethical principles are somehow situational and the law should reflect legal fashions through “legal positivism.” In other words, for Obama, “the end justifies the means,” exactly contrary to the natural law views that inspired the Founders.
For devastating, short refutations of such moral relativism, I would recommend the books, The Abolition of Man, by C.S. Lewis, and The Law, by Frederic Bastiat.
David Theroux | Feb 2, 2009 | Reply
I am from Wisconsin. I am also one of those way over to the left socialists. I am, however, equally appalled at Holder’s nomination.
My right to bear arms is sacred. It is constitutional. I think that if anyone seriously tries to obstruct the citizens of this country from excercizing that right there will be an uprising.
Also be aware of a bill that has been introduced that would require the purchase of ammunition to be registered and that all ammunition be marked and noted so that all ammo can be tracked. The bill also forbids the use of home-loaded ammunition.
Everyone can go to Change.org and post an action to voice opinions in favor of the citizen’s right to bear arms and the sanctity of the 2nd Amendment.
As a single woman who lives alone, you bet I will keep firearms loaded and ready.
mimi | Feb 2, 2009 | Reply
Before these Socialist traitors dismantle our Constitution beyond repair we must use our numbers in correspondence, marches, and any other show of force possible. NOW is the time. The NRA is a great organization, and there are others that could start an immediate attack by those of us who know, respect, and love the best country ever to exist!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! We have got to ACT. Where is the action?
I send E-mails, complete surveys, and donate to good American organizations. I would like to do much more.
Jim Guinn | Feb 3, 2009 | Reply
I am very much for our 2nd Amendment right. I am very concerned we may not have this much longer....
G Wiseman | Feb 3, 2009 | Reply
No illegal search and seizure? Get pulled over on I-20 in Louisiana with $5,000.00 cash in your pocket and see what happens to it.
Or what about drug tests (whats the “probable cause”?)
Or what about DUI traffic stops? Like on New Years Eve? (Achtung! May ve see your papers?) These are all violations of our constitutional rights, but we put up with them for the “good of the people” supposedly. It’s just another slice out our rights. We’ve already lost the 4th Amendment and don’t know it yet
Tim Halpin | Feb 5, 2009 | Reply
+1 on the comment about getting into ACTION ... please people, don’t just write your reps and join the NRA. You can get others to write and sign them up into the NRA too. I have about a half dozen or so I’ve signed and I will even pay for my immediate family members if they don’t do it themselves!
Mark | Feb 8, 2009 | Reply
This means, if necessary, a NATIONAL PERMIT to carry Concealed. Many rights, in this ever shrinking USA, need to be nationalized.
Paul Z. Franczkowski | Jan 24, 2009 (4 weeks ago) | Reply
Communism was NATIONALIZED. We The People do NOT need PERMISSION from ANYONE, (especially from the very idiots in government), to carry a weapon. What part of the 2nd Amd. (Shall NOT be infringed) does anyone not UNDERSTAND???? 300 million (minus 2 or 3 million illegals “invaders”) Americans need to STOP whining and complaining and say screw the government. This country is going to have another civil war within the next 10-20 years because the American people are getting fed up with the stupidity of retarded Americans in public office who don’t know what the constitution says or means. Only this time, the states will prevail. Hooray for New Hampshires recent anti federal government legislation. I regret that I have but only one life to live!..Now what famous patriot said that?...
Mr. E | Feb 17, 2009 | Reply
Amen, brother E, preach on. I sure hope and pray that John Q Public starts realizing that all 46 states with concealed weapons laws in place have dropped in major crime rates. Hmm, that Second Amendment doesn’t work does it!!!
Don Dennis | Feb 17, 2009 | Reply
I strongly support 2nd Amendment rights for individuals to bear arms.
Cornelis Los | Feb 19, 2009 | Reply
The crime rates in the 46 states have dropped is a remarkable statistic that supports concealed weapons and firearms law.
ffl license | Jul 28, 2010 | Reply