Shooters Forum banner

1 - 7 of 7 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,547 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Elena Kagan has been nominated for the Supreme Court. Here's how she stands on our issue. Let's not get a hot political thread going here; the intent is to get facts and to get educated about her.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jun/9/kagans-threat-to-gun-owners/

Some excerpts:

When Ms. Kagan served as Mr. Clinton's deputy domestic policy adviser, she was a feverish proponent of gun control. From gunlock mandates to gun-show regulations, she was instrumental in pushing anti-gun policies, according to the Los Angeles Times...

Every court nomination counts. Two years ago, the Supreme Court barely mustered a narrow 5-4 majority to strike down the extreme District of Columbia gun ban. Should Justice Anthony Kennedy or one of the four more conservative justices retire or die while Mr. Obama is in office, the high court likely will undo such narrow victories for the Second Amendment...

When Ms. Kagan clerked for Justice Thurgood Marshall, she wrote, "I'm not sympathetic" to the claim that "the District of Columbia's firearms statutes violate [an individual's] constitutional right to 'keep and bear Arms.' "
Her memos to Justice Marshall foreshadow an activist judge who wouldn't hesitate to fall back on her own personal views to override policy decisions made by elected officials...

Ms. Kagan is Justice Sonia Sotomayor's soul sister when it comes to gun control. Last year, during her confirmation hearings, Ms. Sotomayor insisted the Supreme Court had never found that an individual right to self-defense exists. Two of Justice Sotomayor's own appeals court decisions came to the same conclusion. One ruling denied there is an individual right to self-defense. In another case, even after the Supreme Court struck down the District's gun ban, Judge Sotomayor opined that any restrictions on self-defense would pass constitutional muster so long as politicians who passed it said they had a good reason.

Senators must realize that a vote for Ms. Kagan for the Supreme Court is another vote against gun rights.

© Copyright 2010 The Washington Times, LLC.
 

·
The Hog Whisperer (Administrator)
Joined
·
36,699 Posts
Yup. I'm afraid that is what we'll be faced with re: gun ownership until there is a different administration in the White House.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,237 Posts
That's not good.

A NJ Demorat has fired up a bill to mandate notification of NRA membership to politicians and the individuals employer.

Scary.
 

·
"Bad Joke Friday" Dan (moderator emeritus)
Joined
·
7,762 Posts
Certainly a serious problem. But the problems starts way below the Supreme Court (not that the Supreme Court isn't critical to the issue of firearm control). The two groups of retirees I eat lunch once a week here in Iowa don't have a clue. None of them are hunters or shooters, and all of them misquote the "facts" all the time......for example, everyone can walk into a gun shop and buy a full automatic assault weapon. And they think what the Media has chosen to call "assault weapon" is always a full automatic. And of course all the weapons used in Mexico all come from the U.S. !

None of them have any concerns about home defense, thus don't even own a firearm. I keep reminding them that every time the Media reports a residential killing, the typical response from the neighborhood is "That never happens here."

So education at the grass roots level is needed to make the voters more aware of the facts and election of the officials that select the Supreme Court membership based on better information. As is typical, the problem is "we"......and getting ahead of the power curve.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,665 Posts
That costs money. The NRA needs more.
No, the NRA doesn't need more money. The NRA reaches people who already own firearms. Those who don't own firearms find the NRA to be alarmist, reactionary, paranoid and dishonest so they don't listen to the NRA.

If we want to change people's perception about firearms, then it is up to us as individuals, not some umbrella lobbying group like the NRA.

Think grassroots here people. Teach a kid to shoot and hunt ethically. Take a newbie shooting. It's all about education one to one cause the NRA doesn't cut it with the non-gun crowd.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,733 Posts
No, the NRA doesn't need more money. The NRA reaches people who already own firearms. Those who don't own firearms find the NRA to be alarmist, reactionary, paranoid and dishonest so they don't listen to the NRA.
so what? The radical left doesn't cut it w/most people and they've advanced their agenda for the last 45 years by influencing legislation and buying votes. Do you think folks approve of Soros' radical agenda? You gonna fight that one person at a time or are you going to support the NRA... a big, powerful lobby that actually has clout in DC.

We have to fight fire w/ fire. The NRA needs lots more money than it now has.
 
1 - 7 of 7 Posts
Top