When Attorney General Eric Holder ordered the Sanford, Fla., police department to hold on to all the evidence in George Zimmerman’s trial following his acquittal on murder and manslaughter charges in the death of Trayvon Martin, he was doing more than signaling the U.S. Justice Department plans to subject the neighborhood watch captain to double jeopardy in violation of the Constitution.
By specifically telling the local police they should not return Zimmerman’s gun, he was telling every American firearms owner he had the power and the intent to take their guns, too.
It’s really a double whammy for the Constitution – the highest law enforcement officer in the federal government blatantly indicating ever-so-subliminally that he holds both the Fifth Amendment and the Second Amendment in utter contempt.
The Fifth Amendment, among other things, expressly prohibits any person being subjected to criminal charges for the same offense twice. But Holder plans to do just that. The simple, straightforward meaning of the Constitution is clear – once acquitted of a crime, no court in the U.S. can subject a citizen to another trial. But there’s more than the Constitution barring Holder from authority to prosecute Zimmerman again. It’s a matter of common law that predates the Constitution. In other words, what Holder is attempting to do, whatever bogus, politically and racially motivated charges might be brought against Zimmerman by the U.S. government, they represent a denial of his most basic, universal, God-given civil rights. Yet, ironically, Holder is expected to file federal charges against Zimmerman for denial of Trayvon Martin’s civil rights.
That Holder wants to limit the sweeping scope of the Second Amendment is hardly a matter of debate. His record is clear on the right of citizens to bear arms. He opposes it.
On Feb. 7, 2013, Holder made it clear that he and Barack Obama have the power to decide who has the right to bear arms and who doesn’t. You can hear those comments for yourself with your own ears and watch the words come out of his own mouth.
More recently he attacked the very notion that people have a right to self-defense by attacking Florida's stand-your-ground law when he said: "There has always been a legal defense for using deadly force if – and the 'if' is important – no safe retreat is available. But we must examine laws that take this further by eliminating the common sense and age-old requirement that people who feel threatened have a duty to retreat."
A duty to retreat? When attacked in a place you have every right to be? This stands the idea of a right to self-defense on its head – which is exactly the place George Zimmerman found himself when he shot Trayvon Martin.
Last April, Holder wrote a letter to Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback that demonstrated his contempt for the Second Amendment. Holder's missive was in response to the governor signing into law that stated: "Any act, law, treaty, order, rule or regulation of the government of the United States which violates the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is null, void and unenforceable in the state of Kansas." Any supporter of the Second Amendment should be delighted with such an affirmation of the Constitution. Holder was not.
He wrote: "In purporting to override federal law and to criminalize the official acts of federal officers, SB102 directly conflicts with federal law and is therefore unconstitutional."
Wait a minute! Was Holder admitting that some federal gun laws violate the U.S. Constitution? If not, what was he worried about?
And let's not forget that Holder was the architect of the "Fast and Furious" program that had federal law enforcement officers selling guns to the Mexican drug cartels in an apparent bid to gin up support for more gun confiscation when those firearms were later used to kill Americans. Indeed they were. At least two U.S. law enforcement officers were later killed by criminals with those weapons – a scandalous crime for which Holder has thus far managed to avoid accountability.
But it's not just the Constitution Holder holds in contempt. He has also been held in contempt of Congress.
On June 28, 2012, by a House of Representatives vote of 255-67 vote, with 17 Democrats voting for the measure, Holder became the first attorney general in American history to be held in contempt of Congress in connection with his refusal to turn over documents subpoenaed in the "Fast and Furious" investigation. That's one way of beating the rap.
And so far he has been successful. His determination to promote his radical agenda by any means necessary should never be underestimated.