Rep. Paul Broun forms task force to defend rights of gun owners

  • Follow Latest News

ATHENS, Ga. -- U.S. Rep. Paul Broun is shooting back at Attorney General Eric Holder for proposing a renewed ban on assault weapons.

Mr. Broun, a Republican whose 10th District includes parts of the Augusta area, recently formed a bipartisan Second Amendment Task Force with Rep. Dan Boren, D-Okla. He said in a news release that a ban on assault weapons is “extremely troubling since a ban clearly violates our constitutional right to bear arms.”

Mr. Broun was responding to Mr. Holder’s widely reported statement Wednesday that President Obama wants to bring back a Clinton-era ban on assault weapons.

“As President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons,” Mr. Holder said at a news conference to announce the arrest of more than 700 people in a crackdown on Mexican drug cartels operating in the United States.

Congress approved the ban in 1994 as part of a wide-ranging crime bill, and it expired in 2004. The ban included many semi-automatic pistols, shotguns and rifles such as AK-47s, TEC-9s, Uzis and AR-15s that law-enforcement officials consider more suitable for killing people than for hunting or home defense.

Mr. Broun, an avid hunter who’s known for his collection of mounted animals, does not believe the federal government should regulate firearms in any way. Such regulations are “a slippery slope” to violating the Second Amendment, spokeswoman Pepper Pennington said.

“You’re limiting law-abiding citizens,” Ms. Pennington said. “You’re not getting to the criminals. You’re not getting to the terrorists.”

University of Georgia law professor Jim Ponsoldt, though, said a ban on assault weapons would probably withstand a constitutional challenge, even though the Supreme Court is dominated by conservatives who’ve struck down other gun-control laws. For example, last year the court overturned a handgun ban in Washington, D.C.

“The ability of the government to regulate is there,” Mr. Ponsoldt said. “Like every amendment, the Second Amendment is not absolute. I would be very surprised if even this court said the government could not regulate assault weapons.”

No congressman has introduced legislation to bring back the assault weapon ban, but the Second Amendment Task Force Mr. Broun co-chairs will fight any gun-control efforts, Mr. Pennington said.

“I think we’re going to have to be a voice in the House that’s ... playing defense,” she said.

Comments (48) Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
Hatfield0278
1
Points
Hatfield0278 03/02/09 - 10:03 am
0
0
Thanks Dr. Broun!

Thanks Dr. Broun!

intheknow
16
Points
intheknow 03/02/09 - 10:11 am
0
0
Thanks for what? Why in the

Thanks for what? Why in the heck do you need an assault weapon? I know the Russia, Iraqi or the Muslims may come.

john
1047
Points
john 03/02/09 - 10:18 am
0
0
They are fun to shoot, there

They are fun to shoot, there are actually organized tournaments where you can compete. It gets you off your azz and outside having fun. Well, I guess only rich people can afford them so screw them. Take their rights away its ok.

JackBootedThug
0
Points
JackBootedThug 03/02/09 - 10:42 am
0
0
Any gun ban effects law

Any gun ban effects law abiding citizens, not the criminals. Convicted felons are already breaking the law simply by posessing any weapon, so do you think a gun ban of any kind will take away their guns? No, but it will disarm law abiding citizens. And remember, a ban on assault weapons doesn't take them out of the hands of people who now possess them, it makes it against the law to manufacture any more. That means that criminals (and law abiders) who posess them them now will still possess them after any ban is enacted. By the way, check to see how many people who commit crimes involving guns possess a state issued firearms permit. That would be a good way to identify the folks who need to be dealt with...

mad_max
0
Points
mad_max 03/02/09 - 11:04 am
0
0
intheknow....No I am not so

intheknow....No I am not so much worried about the Russians, Iraqis, of the mulims as I am about our own government. I think the Declaration of Independence lays out the case for "throwing off" an obpressive government and to me it looks like this one will qualify if it continues on the course they have charted. In 40 days they have laid the ground for the most intrusive, taxing, anti-capitalism government we have seen since the beginning of this country. I am advocating a TAXPAYER REVOLT. Yeh, I know that is only 40% of the people but we are a mean bunch with all of our assault weapons, especially when you tell us you are going to take our guns AND our money.

americafirst
966
Points
americafirst 03/02/09 - 11:07 am
0
0
We should learn a lesson from

We should learn a lesson from great britain. They instituted a total ban on handguns several years ago. Now violent crime has increased dramatically to levels never experienced there before. The only people armed now in that country are the criminals. One GB newspaper did a poll of criminals in prison and asked them what they feared the most: prison or a homeowner with a gun. Almost everyone said the armed homeowner.

Jim Christian
0
Points
Jim Christian 03/02/09 - 11:13 am
0
0
Hey Dr. Broun! Thanks you so

Hey Dr. Broun! Thanks you so much for your fine work. Tell me...once you get these pesky democrats to start thinking your way, I'll need your advice. Should I go for the Minuteman silo in my backyard, or just go all out and build a Death Star? Because I strongly believe in my second ammendment rights to own any and all weapons I choose, and I'm sure you agree.

jack
10
Points
jack 03/02/09 - 11:38 am
0
0
Thanks for what? Why in the

Thanks for what? Why in the heck do you need an assault weapon? I know the Russia, Iraqi or the Muslims may come.
Posted by intheknow on Mon Mar 2, 2009 9:11 AM...Semiautomatic pistols are not assault weapons but are the most chosen for home defense. The original bill (because of Sen Boxer(shorts) ignorance of guns, the banned guns were picked out by her staff from a gun magazine and included many hunting rifles. I agree that I don't see a need for private citizens to have automatic wepons or a magazne fed weapon that is over 10 rounds, but regulating is different from banning. To have an automatic weapon legally you must pay a large fee and register with the ATF.

jack
10
Points
jack 03/02/09 - 11:45 am
0
0
Thanks Dr Broun for

Thanks Dr Broun for supporting the US Constitution, something DIMocRATS have a problem in reading and comprehending, especially the second amendment and first amendment free speech as they now want to "regulate" talk radio.

Brad Owens
4717
Points
Brad Owens 03/02/09 - 12:12 pm
0
0
"Why in the heck do you need

"Why in the heck do you need an assault weapon?". Rights are NOT about NEEDS but about WANTS. Its about what a FREE person CHOOSES and those free choices are what the Bill of Rights (BOR) was/is about. Why do we NEED a free press? Why do we NEED free choice on who we pray to? Neither of those INSURES a government free from tyranny BUT guns do. Nowhere in the BOR does it state that these rights belong to the State. In fact, how come EVERY other part of the BOR is seen as INDIVIDUAL rights being stated to be secured except on the 2nd? Assault weapons are NOT the problem (the ones they want to ban are assault-STYLE weapons NOT true assault weapons as defined a-NEE-way) it's a society that will not discipline the criminal element. If society doesn't discipline its criminals then society will be disciplined by its criminals. The fact is that none of this has ANYTHING to do with fighting crime so much as it does with making people FEEL better about crime...to bureaucrats, making people FEEL better about a problem is almost better than actually solving a problem because it justifies the paycheck in the eyes of the “people” and insured its next paycheck

patriciathomas
42
Points
patriciathomas 03/02/09 - 12:37 pm
0
0
Thanks Dr. Broun. Time after

Thanks Dr. Broun. Time after time you've stood up for the constitutional rights of the free American. Now, more than ever you're needed. Georgia's 10th district knows and appreciates you, but all of America benefits from your stance.

grouse
1635
Points
grouse 03/02/09 - 12:49 pm
0
0
Every home should have a
Unpublished

Every home should have a bazooka.

dashiel
176
Points
dashiel 03/02/09 - 12:55 pm
0
0
Wasn't it Broun who said gun

Wasn't it Broun who said gun control means having to use both hands, or was that some other comedian? Another desperate politician seeking popularity among the chowderheads.

BAMABOY
20
Points
BAMABOY 03/02/09 - 01:17 pm
0
0
Brad, While I agree with you

Brad,

While I agree with you on some levels, it does not take an assault style gun to hunt deer or turkeys. And while the 2nd amendment does protect our "right to bear arms", which I believed was put into the BOR to allow the person to protect himself from a government getting to big, I don't believe our founding fathers even had the slightest idea we would invent a weapon that would fire 600 rounds per minute. The BOR are supposed to be a living document able to be changed by the legal populas at any time they deam necessary. I believe if we follow the letter of the law and at the time it was written, we all need to be allowed only a mussle loading single shot rifle or pistol. Now let the thugs deal with that and see what happens.

YellowHammer
0
Points
YellowHammer 03/02/09 - 01:38 pm
0
0
I disagree with Brad Owens

I disagree with Brad Owens much of the time, but on this he has hit the nail on the head. And to BAMABOY, I am ashamed to see someone identifying with that great free state having such an opionion. The constitution isn't a "breathing docoment". Yes, it can be changed. So whenever 37 states vote affirmative with a constitutional convention, it can be changed. Until then, it is what it is. PERIOD

message
1
Points
message 03/02/09 - 02:05 pm
0
0
You moron Paul Broun,why do

You moron Paul Broun,why do Georgians elected a member of secret society to serve in the white house? Paul Broun speak out against another high ranking figure in the white house who is a african american,first President Obama and now Eric Holder. Paul Broun face the facts you are powerless against these two top officials,your voice falls on deaf ears.

Brad Owens
4717
Points
Brad Owens 03/02/09 - 02:09 pm
0
0
Again, where in the BOR does

Again, where in the BOR does it say that these rights can be regulated down by the government? That was EXACTLY what they were trying to prevent. I look at this as an assault on basic freedoms when the mob can take my rights away and its supposed to be for my own good. When have they ever gotten it right? EVER? I will not trust any jackassed politician telling me which way is up as long as he doesn't know the Constitution. Too many jackassey people in Washington as it is anyway. They know that if they don't get these out of our hands they may be staring down the muzzle one day...

gnx
7
Points
gnx 03/02/09 - 02:21 pm
0
0
Brad - well stated! People

Brad - well stated! People need to understand that control of the people, and not by the people, is the ultimate goal of any government body seeking to take away or modify any of our rights as citizens.

Jim Christian
0
Points
Jim Christian 03/02/09 - 02:42 pm
0
0
Brad's right! I WANT a

Brad's right! I WANT a Minuteman *and* a Death Star.

Niko Mahs
83
Points
Niko Mahs 03/02/09 - 03:01 pm
0
0
Hey Brounie, you're doing a

Hey Brounie, you're doing a heckova job! Preserve those assault weapons because we'll be selling them to the Mexican drug gangs so that we can get more Blow up here in the CSRA.

DMac_357
1
Points
DMac_357 03/02/09 - 03:03 pm
0
0
Gun nuts are going to freak.

Gun nuts are going to freak. They think their right to bear arms means that they can possess anything they want. There is no need for AK-47s, TEC-9s, Uzis, M-16s, and AR-15s unless you are in law enforcement or the military and using them for your job. Lets see what the Supreme Court says.

JackBootedThug
0
Points
JackBootedThug 03/02/09 - 03:06 pm
0
0
Hey Bamaboy, There are

Hey Bamaboy, There are already laws on the books regarding firearms that are capable of firing 600 rounds per minute. The are called fully automatic weapons and they are already regulated and are not available to the general public.

mopa
0
Points
mopa 03/02/09 - 05:28 pm
0
0
The "Assault Weapons Ban"

The "Assault Weapons Ban" does not ban "assault weapons" it bans cosmetic features that have no bearing on the function or capability of the weapon.

Assault weapons are selective fire weapons that are regulated by the National Firearms Act of 1934. The "Assault weapons Ban" attempts to regulate guns that look like military weapons, even though they are functionally no different from any other weapon.

By the way, did you know your deer rifle is thought by some to be a sniper rifle? Why do you need a 15x scope when you can only shoot a deer at 150yds? That bullet is capable of killing at 600yds, why do you need that?

Its about control folks.

HYPOCRITES 08
7
Points
HYPOCRITES 08 03/02/09 - 07:19 pm
0
0
It's about fanatics. There is

It's about fanatics. There is no need for weapons that kill at 600 yards and if the " Government wanted to take away your guns, what in the hell do you think you will be able to do to stop it? The government does not want your guns, it wants sensible regulations. A little too much Red Dawn fellows.

deeo1055@yahoo.com
0
Points
deeo1055@yahoo.com 03/02/09 - 07:23 pm
0
0
Had the colonists not had

Had the colonists not had firearms, we would never have had a US Constituiton that recognized liberty and freedom that the masses of the world have always desired. Had the non-computerized Nazis been met at the door by armed Jewish and etc.citizens, the Holocost might have been avoided or at least somewhat aborted. ANYONE who does not recognize that all of the idealistic freedoms of the 1st amendment are PRACTICALLY PROTECTED by the the 2nd ammendment is absolutly blind or a foolish or worse, and I refuse to put my life in the hands of such lamb willingly awaiting the slaughter.

jedex6
18
Points
jedex6 03/02/09 - 07:23 pm
0
0
All gun owners need to take

All gun owners need to take their guns and aim them at their stupid heads, pull the trigger, and rid us of their arrogance and stupidity once and for all. Then they would know what an animal experiences when it is shot by a gun-toting, bible-thumping ignoramus such as themselves. Assault weapons are not needed for home defense, as stated in the press release. Our country burns while fools like Broun fiddle over assault weapons. Anyone who prizes his collection of mounted animals gets no respect from me. Broun is a disgusting embarassment and the rest of the country laughs at him and the backward state of GA.

steve-o
0
Points
steve-o 03/02/09 - 07:34 pm
0
0
Thanks Dr, Broun! I have to

Thanks Dr, Broun! I have to disagree with you jedex (big surprise!) I own a so-called assault weapon and I am thankful to GOD for granting me the right to keep and bear one. I do not advocate murder of those who differ of my opinion, and I do hunt deer and turkeys, doves, and rabbits. While I do understand and respect every person's decision on whether to own or not to own firearms, I would not mandate gun ownership, nor restrict it. People like YOU- the gun grabbing socialist do-gooding, anti american, anti GOD pigs, is the very reason that people like me own ak-47's, ar-15's, and mini 14's!

jedex6
18
Points
jedex6 03/02/09 - 07:38 pm
0
0
The second amemdment had as

The second amemdment had as its purpose the arming of private citizens so that they could be called upon if the Feds needed to call upon a militia, as in the case of the Revolution. There was not a standing army as such at the time, and so private citizens were given the right to bear arms. It was never intended for citizens to take the law into their own hands, Clint Eastwood style. Certainly there is no reason for private citizens to possess assault weapons, and you can bet that a lot more lambs have been slaughtered over the years than otherwise would have been as a direct result of assault weapons. Saying that the Jews could have defended themselves with guns against the Nazis in any realistic form is laughable nonsense. The second amendment does not protect the freedoms of the first amendment. Our protection comes from our military and from state and local professional law enforcement. We pay taxes, supposedly, to be protected. Anyone who thinks that his freedom and protection are curtailed because he cannot possess an assault weapon is either a maniac or a typical GA redneck like Broun.

jedex6
18
Points
jedex6 03/02/09 - 07:40 pm
0
0
steve-o! i have missed you! I

steve-o! i have missed you! I see you went off your meds again. Welcome back!

steve-o
0
Points
steve-o 03/02/09 - 07:40 pm
0
0
Remember... "when seconds

Remember... "when seconds count, the police are minutes away" That's why I carry a gun everywhere I go. Guess what? In the 10 years that I have been carrying, not once have I EVER drawn my weapon, brandished it, let alone shot anyone. My guns are like my jumper cables in my truck, I don't run around showing them off to folks, I just have them in case I need them.

Back to Top

Search Augusta jobs