E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
The National Rifle Association says today it's opposing Elena Kagan's nomination for the Supreme Court and will score her vote, which could further discourage Republicans from voting for her.
"This vote matters and will be a part of future candidate evaluations," the NRA says.
Excerpts from an NRA statement follow:
In testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, she refused to declare support for the Second Amendment, saying only that the matter was "settled law."
This was eerily similar to the scripted testimony of Justice Sonia Sotomayor last year, prior to her confirmation to the Court. When pressed on the Second Amendment then, Sotomayor also referred to the issue as "settled law."
But in the recently decided case of McDonald v. City of Chicago, Sotomayor ignored the "settled law" of the Heller decision and signed a dissenting opinion that declared, "I can find nothing in the Second Amendment's text, history, or underlying rationale that could warrant characterizing it as 'fundamental' insofar as it seeks to protect the keeping and bearing of arms for private self-defense purposes."
It has become obvious that "settled law" is the scripted code of an anti-gun nominee's confirmation effort. The NRA is not fooled. No member of the U.S. Senate should be either.
With no judicial record, only Kagan's political career can be reviewed. And this provides no reason to trust her with Americans' firearms freedom. Throughout her career, she has repeatedly demonstrated a clear hostility to the fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms under the U.S. Constitution.
As a clerk for Justice Thurgood Marshall, Kagan said she was "not sympathetic" to a challenge to Washington, DC's ban on firearms. As a domestic policy adviser in the Clinton White House, a colleague described her as "immersed" in Clinton's aggressive assaults on the Second Amendment. She was involved in Clinton's scheme to ban more than 50 types of commonly-owned semiautomatic firearms - an effort described as "…taking the law and bending it as far as we can to capture a whole new class of guns."
As U.S. Solicitor General, Kagan chose not to file a brief last year in the landmark McDonald case, thus taking the position that incorporating the Second Amendment and applying it to the states was of no interest to the Obama Administration or the federal government.
These are not the positions of a person who supports the Second Amendment and, in fact, represent a clear and present danger to the right to keep and bear arms.
Leave a Comment:
I find it passingly strange that those of you commenting who live in Chicago would feel so strongly about gun control. In your community total lawlessness in the order of the day with the highest murder rate in the country? When are you going to get tired of the violence and do something about it? Limiting access to fire arms is not the answer obviously. since Dayley and his laws have been a dismal failure. Man up, buy a fire arm, learn the rules of how to use it and take back your city! Grow a set!!!
Puzzled-1945702
look at my post, also today the city approved a new hand gun law allowing owners ship.
Ownership of some weapons such as full auto rifles/machinguns require an annual licensing from ATF, semi auto rifles shotguns and 22 are hunting weapons. Handguns are necessary home protection for individuals. The problem lies with the thugs on the streets, gang bangers either with felonies or under age and NOT supposed to possess firearms to start with. Perhaps murders in conjuntcion with a felony should carry an automatic DEATH SENTENCE>. When politions stop having tax payer piad security then maybe I will not choose to renew my concealed carry permit and leave my handgun at home. Personally, if i had to transverse any large city after dark I will carry my 45 auto colt.
Has anyone stopped to think that "well regulated" in the 1700's may have had more to do with a well regulated watch keeping time properly or that citizens had sufficient training to do things properly? We see "well regulated" in our 20th century mindset and automatically think it's about having limiting laws or regulations. And yet back then, or even into the 1800's, the only firearms laws were to make sure slaves and later freed blacks didn't have guns. Hence the 14th amendment. It is hugely ironic to see "progressives" siding with what started as racist laws and further taking away their own freedoms in disarming the masses. Ironic and historically clueless. Patrick Henry would weep at how many have become de facto Tories.
NRA - The most dangerous domestic terrorist organization in the country.
If it's true that "guns don't kill people, people kill people," then we could have saved a lot of money in Iraq and Afghanistan. We should have just sent the people, and they could have left their guns at home!
Hey Repubs -
you are fillibustering the Unemployment Bill...
you are fillibustering the financial refrom Bill...
you say nothing is more important then who sits on the Supreme Court - buy yet, you are not fillibustering Kagans appointment...
did you check with the NRA first before deciding?
The second amendment, like all other rights guaranteed by the Constitution are important, but not absolute. The problem with the NRA is that they oppose ANY restrictions on guns. They suffer from the same kind of myopia that other single issue groups do.
My handgun was designed to defend. It will do the job it was designed for without even being fired.
The same old story...The NRA opposes intelligence.
Charles, you guys had your own version of Byrd and he was called Strom Thurmond. Wow.. again the short term memory loss for republicans. Ended up the guy had a black child... hmmmm.
As for you gun whackos... yes, it is in the constitution.. I have no problem with the right to own a gun. However, why is it required to get a license to drive, but NRA feels we shouldn't have to register guns? Why the need for AK47's????? If they had their way, they would make it legal to own shoulder launchers, grenades, etc. Where does it really stop?
So darn interesting that when a Rep Pres appoints someone, then it is all ok if the judge has a conservative ilk about them, but suddenly a Dem appoints a liberal and it is a sin. Reps always think their interpretation of everything is the ONLY moral and right way.
I will try to answer you in as simple of terms that I can only hope you might understand.
First, Not all "gun wackos" are Republicans. Common mistake from someone who still believes that an inanimate object actually kills people. (The trigger has to be pulled, a framing hammer will do the job equally well and noone is asking to get rid of them)
Licenses are required for driving because some people have far less control over their driving than a gun owner has over his gun. Gun Registration, licensing, whatever is seen as another infringement of constitutional guarantees, placing the owner at the whim of the government for confiscation of those weapons that are licensed. Now that may seem totally stupid to you, but your opinion seems even more stupid to the nation's gun-owners. You are willing to jeopardize your freedoms, they are not.
I never really thought about owning an AK until the oil spill in the gulf. The damage off-shore drilling can do might lead to something akin to the doomsday scenarios of "the Road". Laugh, if you will, but the oceans are the fuel for life on this planet and when they are dead, so are most of us.
Where does it stop? Your logic is amazing to me. The NRA espouses that the government should not place blocks in the way of "the right to keep and bear arms". Any infringement is a negative. Most gun-owners are not going to go buy a rocket launcher, if that calms your squeamishness. Your fear of guns equates to my daughters fear of spiders. As long as you don't handle them, or get in their way, you're pretty safe. Now a real antisocial spider might hurt you, but then you don't care whether they have pinsers and you don't. Your choice.
Finally, we are all aware of the appointment by party method of putting in the SC Judges. The problem is Sotomayer said it was "settled law" then abruptly voted against the measure just passed by the SC. Guess her definition of settled law is like Clinton's idea of sex.
This is the classic hoodwinking by anti-gun forces, for nominees to get confirmation past their bias against gun ownership. "Settled Law" Sotomayer and now Kagan. America will soon be forced to decide whether they want to own their guns or give them up. I'm afraid the government is not in as firm a control position as they think. Once this goes to that level of challenge, I fear the result. Instead of putting someone in this position, who diametrically opposes the law of the land, she should not even be considered. The possibility of revolution is not an impossibility. Supreme Court rulings that diminish, or eliminate, constitutionally guaranteed rights are more dangerous than anything I can imagine.
The only litmus test I use is how much integrity does the nominee possess. Obviously, Sotomayer has none. Her testimony before Congress was a LIE. Even the simple minded should at least think about that.
Communists, fascists, and progressives regularly tell lies to get what they want. Ideologists for authoritarian systems of belief justify deceit as a useful tool. Advocates of individual liberty are wise to oppose Kagen. Her testimony is of little value. For a progressive to calling something "settled law" says nothing about that person's intentions for the future - it's cameoflage.
The progressives have learned nothing from history and do not understand the consequence of their own ideas. To the extent that they succeed in the political and judical arena, our liberties are in grave jeapordy.
Funny statement from someone who obviously has trouble reading. Try again Sean.
The NRA is against her? Then I am definitely for her even more. Thanks.
Where's the beef! Americans will and always have the right to bear arms. This is a no brainer. Democrats and Independents like their guns just as much as republicans so I would'nt worry any. This is settled law.
The United States of America should issue free of charge military class automatic weapons and ammo to every person over the age of 18 and train them in the use of said weapons. The Government should sponsor sharp shooter contests and weapons proificiency events all over the country issuing cash prizes and trophies etc, as evidenced of a citizens mastery of weapons training and use. As weapons technology improves each successive generation should be given the new and advanced weaponry and be trained in their use. The older weapons should be retained as momentos. Such a policy would create a true and effective militia and bind us together as citizens. This policy should be adhered to in strict compliance with the idea of equality, so these weapons would be issued to everyone withoput regard to race, creed, sexual preference, etc.
During weapons training individuals would be evaluated for mental competency, if found wanting they would be disqualified, and their right to bear arms would be terminated until they could prove their competency restored. The training would be useful in weeding out the nut cases and those too immature to be granted the right to bear arms, I also think the trasining itself would impress on everyone the importance of gun safety and the awesome power of these weapons and the responsibilty involved in the right to bear arms. If we institued this policy weapons would be come part of our daily lives, we would all be a lot safer, and guns would lose their fascination factor very quickly.
blah
I take it you don't think this is a real good idea. I merely express the wet dream of the NRA as this is where it will end up. And you know I am ok with that, as long as i am issued my automatic weapon.
I agree Kagen is bad for the bench & it has nothing to do with being a dem or red.. The NRA is the oldest and largest civil rights group. They vote on merit and this kagen is full of shat. The people who say that the NRA only support the republicans are full of cow poop. You have absolutely no clue WTF you are talking about.
Learn to think for yourself and not go with party lines8) the Republicans and Dems have ultimately destroyed our country with their infighting & corruption.
Seems like there is alot of whining from the losers today who lost.. Hey we win you lose 8) The majority of Americans believe and love their guns to bad deal with it.
If its not their idea the NRA say's NO to everything... sounds familiar doesn't it... I like her more now then I did before I actually new who she was!!
| NRA opposes Kagan; will score vote |
I care about what the NRA "thinks" about as much as I care what Caribou Barbie, Nutsy Beck, Minority Leader Boner, et al "think".
So what! Who cares!
How about this? If you don't like guns, don't get one. I will say that I wouldn't want you carrying one if you weren't comfortable with it. But, just because you don't like guns, doesn't mean that others' rights to have a firearm should be taken away. And, guess what - the criminals don't care whether there is a second amendment or not - they are going to acquire and use any gun they can get their hands on, TO COMMIT CRIMES.
I am a woman. I am a mother. I am a gunowner. I am a concealed weapon permit holder. I do carry a gun most places I go, but no one knows it. That's why it's called a concealed weapon. I'm not going to go around killing people or even flash my gun if someone pisses me off. BUT - if I am ever in a situation where my life, or the life of another is in danger, you can be damn sure that I'm going to use it to protect myself, my family, or even a stranger. You can thank me later when I save you from the criminal who was going to kill you, or when I save you from the nut who walks into the grocery store and starts randomly shooting people (Google "Zane Floyd Albertsons" if you don't know what I'm talking about).
To those from Chicago who support the gun ban...really? Really? Is it a good idea for only the criminals to have guns? Wow. Good luck with that. I guess that's why they are running that city.
You anti 2nd amendment just got your asses handed nicely by the highest court 8) again don't be so bitter. The majority rules 8)
When was the NRA elected to office?
What I thought!!!
The Senate should stand up to the NRA. The NRA has no right to decide who is on the Supreme Court .
The NRA is strong because they have the support of both parties. The NRA is indepenant that is why they have so much power. They support gun rights peorid! I am a strong DEM and support the NRA 100%. I like Kagan but if she is against gun rights I will have to reconsider!
Apparently Kagan does not accept the Constitution, the amendments and the Declaration of Independence as law of the land. This woman will be a danger to our Constitutional freedoms. THe NRA members will be keeping close score keeping in mind the November elections this year and the 2012 year.
for people who think we should not have guns to protect ourselves think about thi. when you and your family are at home asleep and thugs break in you call 911 and wait for the police if your lucky they might get thier in ten minutes by then your family could be dead,I on the otherhand would unload my gun on them that would take ten seconds I dont know how you think but I feel safer knowing I can protect myself and family than waiting on some ameture police officer that will probably stop for a donut first.
I am a strong Dem. and support the NRA 100%. Every American is entitled to own a gun. The NRA is independant and have always supported the right for Americans to own a gun. I believe all American's have the right to bar arms.
If the NRA doesn't like her, she's definitely doing something right. If those gun loving rednecks love shooting things so much, can't they hunt each other and leave the rest of us normal people alone?