Holder’s Hypocrisy Dance on Gay Marriage and Guns

Utah’s voters passed a resolution to not recognize gay marriages within their state. Much like when California also overwhelmingly passed a similar resolution those on the losing side of the issue sued to have the will of the people overturned.

Unlike California, the governor of Utah is not complicit the undermining of his own constituency’s voice and decided to fight the suit.

Initially an activist judge, Roberty Shelby, ruled that gay marriages must be performed in Utah. Roughly 1300 such marriages were allowed to go forward until the Supreme Court finally stepped in to place a stay on the ruling until the appeal of Utah was heard.

This is where corrupt Attorney General Eric Holder and the Obama Administration decide to get involved.

Eric Holder has released a statement saying that the Federal Government will recognize these marriages even if their state does not.

Here is the video, take a minute to watch it because I’m about to break down some of the things he said and what it means when applied to gun rights.

Last year the Supreme Court made a landmark ruling. Historic steps of equality for all Americans. Department of Justice moves to implement it in both letter and SPIRIT. While other matters our dealt with in court the Federal Government will RECOGNIZE the right regardless of what the state says. People shouldn’t have to deal with uncertainty as litigation unfolds. Coordinated ACROSS the federal government for TIMELY benefits.

All right Mr. Hyprocrite Holder. Let me get this straight. You swoop in like a man of action when it deals with gay marriage, marriage itself not being a right held anywhere in our basis of government (and which should not have any government involvement to begin with), yet when it comes to an actual enumerated right on which our nation was founded you are not only silent but wantonly attack said right.

Because, correct me if I am wrong, but I think Heller v DC was a “landmark ruling” as was McDonald v Chicago yet there was no federal push to limit New York’s passage of the SAFE Act nor of Connecticut’s push for pointless gun control.

There was no federal oversight ensuring “equality of all Americans” when legislation for the SAFE act gives rights to police officers, both active and retired, that are denied regular folk.

Where was the Justice Department move to “implement the letter and SPIRIT of the ruling” in the District of Columbia where the law abiding are dissuaded and disenfranchised at every possible turn by the City when they try and exercise their Second Amendment rights?

Speaking of DC, where is the Federal Government recognizing ALL permits to carry a firearm within Washington DC? Or for the recognition of the right to carry on federal lands regardless of what the state said land resides in?

And lastly, what “coordination across the federal government” has the Dept. of Justice spearheaded that eases the burden on law abiding gun owners? In fact, between executive actions, failed gun control measures and the propagation of talk on gun bans, the federal government has ignored both the letter and spirit of recent Supreme Court rulings in order to oppress those that covet their right to keep and bear arms.

Speaking of coordination, the highlight of your coordination effort was in running guns into Mexico to give to drug cartels in order for them to murder innocent people and US border patrol agents.

Eric Holder is a hypocrite and a disgrace.

If the Federal Government is so gung-ho on undermining states rights they can start with New York’s SAFE Act.

If the Federal Government is so revved up to keep with the spirit of Heller and McDonald cases they can go ahead and get rid of the Title II regulations because the spirit of the ruling dictates that the right to keep and bear arms is limited only to what those arms the military have for common use.

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.

When I was in the Army I distinctly remember using a machine gun.

And if Eric Holder is so concerned about people dealing with uncertainty as litigation unfolds then the Justice Department needs to chat up the Executive and tell him to pass some orders ensuring that no American’s property can be stolen from them by the States regardless of what new legislation is passed.

And if Mr. Holder wants to do some coordinating across the Federal government he can start with the AFT and have them drop the F.

After all, if a right shall not be infringed why does the ATF deal with firearms at all?

So if Holder wants to slither out of his snakeskin and stop being a hypocritical bastard who doesn’t give a damn about justice, only politics, then a good start would be to embrace the Supreme Courts rulings concerning the rulings he doesn’t like with as much fervor as the ones he does.

Editor’s Note: One of my readers from ammo.com reached out and sent this very comprehensive guide concerning the major Supreme Court decisions regarding the 2nd Amendment and I would encourage you all to take a look.

Related articles