Dear Mr. ruoss:
Thank you for contacting my office regarding gun control. I appreciate you writing to express your interest and opinions on this important matter.
Millions of Americans own firearms for a variety of reasons: many wish to protect themselves and their property while others collect firearms as a hobby or use firearms for sport. Most gun owners are responsible citizens and understand the burden of owning a firearm. While a tiny fraction of the guns in this country are used in the unfortunate instance of the commission of a crime, the government should not prevent gun ownership which would punish law-abiding citizens. I believe the Second Amendment clearly defines the right of citizens to own guns and in my tenure in the Senate, I have a strong record supporting the right of law abiding citizens to own guns.
I opposed the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, more commonly known as the 'Brady Bill.' I believed this legislation to be onerous in its restrictions on individuals' right to purchase firearms and I believe it did not sufficiently address the relevant issues necessary to combat crime.
In the 109th Congress (2005-2006), I voted in favor of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. This act limits the civil liability of gun manufacturers and reduces frivolous lawsuits. During the Senate's consideration of the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act for FY 2007, I supported and the Senate adopted an amendment which would prohibit any funding provided by this legislation to be used for the purpose of confiscating firearms during a natural disaster or another state of emergency.
Thank you again for contacting me regarding the right to own firearms. I will keep your thoughts in mind if the Senate considers any legislation relating to guns or gun control in the 110th Congress. Please be assured, I will continue to support the rights of law abiding citizens to keep and own firearms. If you have any further questions about this issue or any other issue, please contact my office or visit my website at www.specter.senate.gov.
Sincerely,
Arlen Specter
|
Specter Announces Support for Eric Holder
Washington, D.C.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009 -
U.S. Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA), Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, today announced that he will support the nomination of Eric Holder to the position of U.S. Attorney General. Senator Specter’s remarks from a press conference held earlier today follow:
“I have decided to announce my position on Attorney General-designate Holder a day in advance to give my colleagues some notice as to my thinking on the subject.
“I begin with the proposition, as I’ve said publicly, that I want to help President Obama organize his new administration. After considerable thought and analyzing a lot of factors I’ve decided to vote in favor of the confirmation of Mr. Holder.
“The constitutional duty on advice and consent requires an examination of the candidate’s qualifications. I believe that it is necessary to ask questions, pointed questions, to try get a good line of all the nominees. That is especially true with the Attorney General. Unlike other cabinet officers, the Attorney General does more than carry out the President’s policy; the Attorney General has an independent duty to the American people to uphold the rule of law.
“Mr. Holder comes with an excellent resume, excellent educational background, excellent professional qualifications; United States Attorney to the District of Columbia, D.C. Superior Court judge, Deputy Attorney General. And, in an extensive career, there have arisen issues that I thought Mr. Holder had to respond to.
“I had particular concern about the Rich pardon because I chaired the Judiciary Committee hearings on that issue back in the year 2001. I similarly had special concerns about the refusal of the Department of Justice with Mr. Holder’s concurrence and input not to appoint independent counsel to investigate the allegations of campaign finance violations by Vice President Gore. With respect to those issues and the FALN commutation of sentence, there are very, very serious questions.
“The issue of independence is one of really great importance. The Attorney General has traditionally been in a critical spot on that issue on independence. Attorney General Daugherty in the Teapot Dome case, Attorney General Cummings in the Court Packing plan with President Roosevelt – two examples where Attorneys General failed to live up to the duty of independence. Eliot Richardson, Attorney General under Nixon, showed the kind of independence on the Saturday night massacre, as did Griffin Bell when President Carter wanted him to get up to prosecution and Attorney General Bell said if you want that conducted, find yourself a new Attorney General.
“These hearings are important markers. They are important for the individual who is being questioned and they are important for people who watch the hearings, so that one day someone who may be in a lesser position in government, or may not be in government at all, or may be in school will think twice about how he or she conducts himself or herself one day with the prospect of being before a confirmation hearing.
“I think the hearings will have an impact into the future on Mr. Holder. I’ve been a party to many hearings, and I’ve heard decades later people, including Supreme Court Justices, comment about what went on at a hearing. It’s an important matter and it does make a mark. Mr. Holder was candid in conceding with respect to the Rich pardon that he made a mistake.
“Weighing heavily in my mind were recommendations of people who know him very, very well. Know him beyond what we can determine in the course of a confirmation hearing. I know Eric Holder to some extent, having worked with him over the years, but I do not know him as well as Louis Freeh, Former Director of the FBI. I don’t know him as well as James Comey, who was United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York and later Deputy Attorney General. I don’t know him as well as William Coleman, former Secretary of Transportation. Those three men spoke very highly of Mr. Holder, as well as some others.
“I thought that Director Freeh’s comments were especially weighty. And I thought that because he was very, very critical of what Eric Holder had done. Mr. Freeh characterized the Rich pardon as a “corrupt act.” Not saying that Mr. Holder is corrupt, but the pardon itself was corrupt. We know that Mr. Holder made a recommendation of neutral-leaning-positive, going against the recommendation of the pardon attorney. And for Director Freeh to still recommend Mr. Holder is highly significant.
“Similarly Director Freeh was critical of what the Department of Justice did in declining the appointment of independent counsel in the Gore matter. Director Freeh characterized it in terms that he hadn’t seen the application of the need for independent counsel more decisively stated than in that matter. Also on the FALN matter where 16 Puerto Rican terrorists were let out of jail - people involved in murders and bank robberies. Again, it was condemned by Director Freeh, but he made the recommendation in the face of all of that to recommend the confirmation.
“I think that Mr. Holder is entitled to the benefit of the doubt in the context of the excellent record that he has and those recommendations weighed against the issues which were of concern to me.
“Beyond the hearings I had a lengthy meeting with Mr. Holder last Thursday where I was able to discuss quite a number of issues with him. Having an informal meeting has both plusses and minuses. It’s a plus in the sense that you can say some things and get some responses of a more candid nature without being in front of the television cameras. And the disadvantage is that it is not on the record for other people to read and see. But it’s a customary thing to have the informal sessions.
“Coincidentally, the Freeh issue is coming up at the same time as the new Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner. The difference there, I think, is worth just a moment or two. I had initially been inclined to vote for the Secretary of the Treasury and after taking a closer look at it and discussing the matter with the Ranking Member on Finance, I decided to vote against him because in his situation he knew specifically and had made an acknowledgment and an understanding to pay the taxes. And, in fact did not pay monies which had been allocated to him for the specific purpose of paying the taxes. The International Monetary Fund for whom he worked does not pay the social security or payroll tax, but gives him the specific sum of money to pay. When he was audited he paid for two years - 2003 and 2004 - which were within the statute of limitations. He had a similar obligation to pay for 2001 and 2002. The statute had run and he didn’t pay. He really held that money in the form of a trust and it should have been paid. He had a specific acknowledgment of that obligation, which I think is a very different situation from Holder where there is an issue of judgment.
“At no time did I challenge Mr. Holder’s integrity. It was a question of judgment and a question of independence and all factors considered, as I say, I decided to vote for him.”
|
HR 495 IH
111th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 495
To authorize additional resources to identify and eliminate illicit sources of firearms smuggled into Mexico for use by violent drug trafficking organizations, and for other purposes.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
January 14, 2009
Mr. RODRIGUEZ (for himself, Mr. TEAGUE, Mr. ENGEL, and Mr. REYES) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned
A BILL
To authorize additional resources to identify and eliminate illicit sources of firearms smuggled into Mexico for use by violent drug trafficking organizations, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
SEC. 2. PROJECT GUNRUNNER.
(a) In General- The Attorney General shall dedicate and expand the resources provided for the Project Gunrunner initiative of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives to identify, investigate, and prosecute individuals involved in the trafficking of firearms across the international border between the United States and Mexico.
(b) Activities- In carrying out this section, the Attorney General shall--
(1) assign additional agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives to the area of the United States adjacent to the international border between the United States and Mexico to support the expansion of Project Gunrunner teams;
(2) establish not fewer than 1 Project Gunrunner team in each State along the international border between the United States and Mexico; and
(3) coordinate with the heads of other relevant Federal law enforcement agencies and State and local law enforcement agencies to address firearms trafficking in a comprehensive manner.
(c) Additional Staff- The Attorney General may hire Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives agents for, and otherwise expend additional resources needed to adequately support, Project Gunrunner.
(d) Authorization of Appropriations- There are authorized to be appropriated $15,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2010 and 2011 to carry out this section.
SEC. 3. ENHANCED INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION.
(a) In General- The Attorney General, in cooperation with the Secretary of State, shall--
(1) assign agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives to the United States mission in Mexico, to work with Mexican law enforcement agencies in conducting investigations relating to firearms trafficking and other criminal enterprises;
(2) provide the equipment and technological resources necessary to support investigations and to trace firearms recovered in Mexico; and
(3) support the training of Mexican law enforcement officers in serial number restoration techniques, canine explosive detection, and antitrafficking tactics.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations- There are authorized to be appropriated $9,500,000 for each of fiscal years 2010 and 2011 to carry out this section
|
|