 |
 |
 |
|||
 |
|||
 |
|||
 |
|||
 |
|||
 |
|||
 |
|||
 |
|||
 |
|||
 |
|||
 |
|||
 |
|||
 |
|||
 |
|||
 |
|||
 |
|||
 |
|||
 |
|||
 |
|||
 |
|||
 |
|||
|
|||
 |
|||
|
|||
 |
|||
|
GOA Applauds Call to Action on Judge Sotomayor from NRA’s Past President
- Text size
All pro-gunners urged to join this critical fight
Gun Owners of America
Monday, June 29, 2009
Gun Owners of America applauds immediate past NRA President Sandy Froman, who stepped up to the plate last week with a call to arms for all NRA members to vigorously oppose the nomination of Judge Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. (See the article below).
GOA has been calling on our members to oppose this nomination since it is clear that Sotomayor is anti-Second Amendment and wants to legislate from the bench.
The official position from current NRA leadership is to take a “wait and see” approach to the Sotomayor nomination which may well allow her to wiggle through and be confirmed.
- A d v e r t i s e m e n t
– GOA Vice-Chairman Tim Macy
—————————————-
NRA Members Must Oppose Sotomayor
by Sandy Froman
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Judge Sonia Sotomayor, President Barack Obama’s first nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court, has a narrow view of the Second Amendment that contradicts the Court’s landmark decision in District of Columbia v. Heller. A heated debate has started in the U.S. Senate over her opposition to the right to keep and bear arms. This issue, which has decided the fate of presidential elections, could also decide her nomination. Gun owners, and especially the members of the National Rifle Association, must aggressively oppose Judge Sotomayor’s confirmation to the Supreme Court.
On June 24, senators began speaking on the floor of the Senate expressing grave concerns over Judge Sotomayor’s Second Amendment record. Senator Jeff Sessions R-AL, the Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, pointed out that although her record on the issue is “fairly scant,” she has twice stated that the Second Amendment is not a fundamental right. Senator Sessions also noted that in Second Amendment and other constitutional cases, Sotomayor’s analysis of important constitutional issues has been lacking suggesting “a troubling tendency to avoid or casually dismiss difficult Constitutional issues of exceptional importance.” Sotomayor’s view on the Second Amendment clearly reflects an extreme anti-gun philosophy, and some Democrat senators from pro-gun states are justifiably nervous.
Last year, the Supreme Court held in Heller that the Second Amendment guarantees the right of individual Americans to keep and bear firearms. But that ruling was a fiercely-contested, 5-4 split decision. Justice Kennedy joined the four conservatives on the Court to make the majority, with the four liberal justices writing passionate dissents about how the Second Amendment does not apply to private citizens.
Bluntly speaking, the Second Amendment survived by a single vote. Had one justice voted differently, the Second Amendment would have been erased from the Bill of Rights forever. Today in the Supreme Court, the right to bear arms hangs by a single vote.
The next question the Supreme Court will decide is whether the Second Amendment is a “fundamental right” that applies to cities and states, thus preventing them from restricting gun rights. Even the liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held earlier this year in Nordyke v. King that the Second Amendment is a fundamental right, yet Judge Sotomayor disagrees.
When Barack Obama nominated Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, it belied his flowery rhetoric about respecting our constitutional gun rights. Out of almost 200 federal appeals judges in this country, Judge Sotomayor is one of only six to weigh in (after the Heller case) to hold that the Second Amendment only limits federal actions. If your state or city chooses to ban all guns or take away the ones that you already have in your home for hunting and self-defense, Sonia Sotomayor says the Constitution can’t help you.
This position becomes all the more radical when it’s revealed how she reached this conclusion. Only six judges have denied gun rights against the states. Of these, three did so in a recent Seventh Circuit case, NRA v. Chicago, writing a detailed opinion that the Second Amendment doesn’t apply to the states because they thought an old 1800s Supreme Court case tied their hands on the issue, and they commended the case up to the Supreme Court after long and scholarly consideration. Judge Sotomayor and two of her liberal colleagues, however, wrote only a single paragraph on the whole issue when deciding their own New York case, Maloney v. Cuomo. In one paragraph, she said the Second Amendment gives people no rights at all when it comes to state or city laws. She gave no explanation, and made no call for Supreme Court action.
Then we find that this has been a consistent belief for Sotomayor. In a case before her in 2004, she and her colleagues concluded that there is no fundamental right in the Second Amendment but provided no substantive analysis to justify this conclusion. Throughout her career, Judge Sotomayor’s record is one of consistent opposition to the private ownership of firearms.
America has almost 90 million gun owners who value their rights. And of these, no one does more to protect the Second Amendment than the four million members of the National Rifle Association.
I served as an officer of the NRA for nine years, including a two-year term as president. I saw NRA members turn the tide on Election Day 2000 to defeat Al Gore. We fought again to help defeat John Kerry in 2004. We can do the same with Sonia Sotomayor, if we call our U.S. Senators and tell them to vote against this anti-gun judge. No fewer than fourteen Democrat senators have solid records on the Second Amendment, and we must urge them to oppose this nominee.
Next year, the Supreme Court is likely to take up NRA v. Chicago, which will decide whether the Second Amendment applies to states and cities like it does the federal government. This case is as important as Heller, and will massively impact gun rights forever.
We already know where Judge Sotomayor stands. It’s time to tell the Senate, “Vote No! on Sonia Sotomayor.”
-
- Social bookmarks
- Email this article
-
- Print this page
- Share on Twitter
June 29th, 2009 at 8:32 pm
I cancelled my nra today.
June 29th, 2009 at 8:37 pm
HERE: Stream and Download ALL the best interviews and rants from the Alex Jones Show Archives:
http://alex-jones-archives.politicsfiles.info/
TODAY:
- It’s Time to Take A Stand America!!!
- Cap & Trade (ACTION ALERT) Can Change Vote by July 2 Deadline!!
- Home of The Slave “RANT!!!”
- Letting You Know Your A Slave!!
- Bernanke-Samuel Adams & Obama’s “13375″
Backup your favorite episodes, don’t miss any!
Dan Reply:
July 2nd, 2009 at 4:01 pm
how did the judical branch get all this power when they were set up to have the least in our 3 branch government system?
June 30th, 2009 at 1:00 pm
1-800-392-8683 nra-ila the website has one paragraph about sotojoker being blasted by the senate on her gun law stance. advise them to get on sotojokers ass, please and thank you
July 1st, 2009 at 12:43 am
Guns Rights direct Inalienible and Constitutional & Humanity for individuos
No Guns control
never
Cuban,,Venezuelan,,Iran,Brazil
guns control protecing of governings dictators
Fidel Castro
Hugo Chavez
Lula
and Terroists Satanists e Despots
No guns control
Perigous of Domination Wolrd
ONU =666
CFR
FED
OTAN
ANISTY INTERNETIONAL plan Nazists and eugenicists
July 1st, 2009 at 2:06 am
Well, if what I heard on the news yesterday is true, then Sotomeir heh had 7 cases go all the way to the SCOTUS and all but one were overturned. It seems she is not fit to be on this court of jurors. She can only get it right one out of 7 times. Oh, what a little toad of a woman she is. She even admits she was never qualified to attend the universities she was accepted into. She admits she was subpar and only got accepted because she was a female minority applicant without qualifications.
I would enjoy seeing diversity of race and gender in the SCOTUS. But adherence to the U.S. Constitution is a must. And if in doubt, the judges should read and understand the Federal Papers.
This empathy and made up laws needs to end. If judges adhered to the laws, there would be no need for a SCOTUS. If our congress wrote intelligent and adhering laws, then the SCOTUS would be able to meet for a few days and vacation the rest of the time.
July 1st, 2009 at 10:48 am
What Barry wants…..Barry gets………thanks to the pussies in Congress, not to mention the sheeple who voted for him.
No one’s going to stop him, and the best thing that could happen will be to prove he’s incapable of being the POTUS due to his not being a native born American….then all of the shit he’s created can be dismissed as non-binding.
July 1st, 2009 at 4:07 pm
how many names does this usurper have anyway….
July 2nd, 2009 at 1:42 pm
IS ANYONE ELSE NOTICING HIS SHOW SKIPPING LIKE IT TAPED???? I HEARD IT YESTERDAY AND TODAY TOO WTF IS GOING ON? While he was talking to Daniel Miller. Anyone notice this?
July 2nd, 2009 at 4:25 pm
Where is the fucking birth certificate
July 3rd, 2009 at 12:12 am
What is the militia? The term “militia” consists of two parts: the organized militia and the unorganized militia. According to the organic Maine Constitution and backed by the United States Code, the organized militia is the standing military force in the state (the “State Guard”) while the unorganized militia (which is commonly called the militia) consists of all other males between the ages of 17 and 45 (or 65 if they have prior military service). The militia was established for the purpose of defending the state (a sovereign nation) and the United States of America (a union of nations) from all enemies “foreign and domestic” based upon principles of community self defense established hundreds of years before the nation was formed. However, while the organized militia was tasked with the defenses of the states, our forefathers, having just fought their own government, did not place their entire trust in the government or a standing army to protect them but reserved the right and the means to protect themselves – thus the unorganized militia. The militia was and is a defensive body set up so that its members can take care of normal peace by internal lawless elements, or government usurpation of the rights and power of the people guaranteed by the Constitution, there is a group of people that owe their allegiance to no one except God and their fellow Americans who desire to remain free.
The mission and purpose of the militia have not changed. What has changed is the status of the organized militia. The “State Guard” with the duty and obligation of protecting the state is now under federal jurisdiction (the “National Guard”) thereby obligating it only to the federal government making the unorganized militia the only constitutional force available for the defense of the state.
July 3rd, 2009 at 10:37 am
This Sonia Sotomayor hates the Consitution, she needs to move to a another country, scumm who hate the Consitution and the Bill of Rights do not deserve to live here in the U.S.A.
What country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.
Revolution is not something fixed in ideology, nor is it something fashioned to a particular decade. It is a perpetual process embedded in the human spirit.
Here in America we are descended in blood and in spirit from revolutionists and rebels men and women who dare to dissent from accepted doctrine. As their heirs, we may never confuse honest dissent with disloyal subversion.
July 4th, 2009 at 9:09 am
personally, i dont care if she likes the 2nd ammendment, or the constitution. i think where the problem lies, and i know a lot agree with me on this, is the fact the she is a first generation immagrant. im sorry, even in her 50 so-odd years as an american still have not given her enough of a barometer to gauge the “american weather”. she still has all the baggage that her parents came to this country with, and what they expected it to be. compared to what it really was. let alone the fact, (i hate to say this because of the stereo-type) but, i would have to agree with ‘question’ and ask, “where is her birth certificate”? knowing the time when she would have been born was one of the biggest illegal immagrant influxes that we have seen in this country, let alone the factor that this woman seems to be a complete and total uneducated dumbass. maybe we should set up provisions in this country that only true americans can be elected into office. maybe we shouldnt allow first gen immagrants, or for that matter anyone deemed to have affiliated loyalties, to what are percieved as a whole country, to be the enemy of america, (like all these british simpathizers that are infultrating our government and media) then you should deemed unfit to run for office in this country. i also think this applies to barrack and his foreign father and his muslim leanings. like i said these people have no barometer to gauge the ” american weather” because they never were, and never are the going to be americans in the first place.