• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

NRA Opposes Sotomayer

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
imported post

http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/NewsReleases.aspx?ID=12702


[align=center]Joint Statement On Judge Sonia Sotomayor's Nomination To The United States Supreme Court[/align]
Thursday, July 16, 2009
WAYNE LAPIERRE, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION
AND
CHRIS W. COX, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION - INSTITUTE FOR LEGISLATIVE ACTION

Other than declaring war, neither house of Congress has a more solemn responsibility than the Senate’s role in confirming justices to the U.S. Supreme Court. As the Senate considers the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor, Americans have been watching to see whether this nominee – if confirmed – would respect the Second Amendment or side with those who have declared war on the rights of America’s 80 million gun owners.

From the outset, the National Rifle Association has respected the confirmation process and hoped for mainstream answers to bedrock questions. Unfortunately, Judge Sotomayor’s judicial record and testimony clearly demonstrate a hostile view of the Second Amendment and the fundamental right of self-defense guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution.

It is only by ignoring history that any judge can say that the Second Amendment is not a fundamental right and does not apply to the states. The one part of the Bill of Rights that Congress clearly intended to apply to all Americans in passing the Fourteenth Amendment was the Second Amendment. History and congressional debate are clear on this point.

Yet Judge Sotomayor seems to believe that the Second Amendment is limited only to the residents of federal enclaves such as Washington, D.C. and does not protect all Americans living in every corner of this nation. In her Maloney opinion and during the confirmation hearings, she deliberately misread Supreme Court precedent to support her incorrect view.

In last year’s historic Heller decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment guarantees the individual’s right to own firearms and recognizes the inherent right of self-defense. In addition, the Court required lower courts to apply the Twentieth Century cases it has used to incorporate a majority of the Bill of Rights to the States. Yet in her Maloney opinion, Judge Sotomayor dismissed that requirement, mistakenly relying instead on Nineteenth Century jurisprudence to hold that the Second Amendment does not apply to the States.
This nation was founded on a set of fundamental freedoms. Our Constitution does not give us those freedoms – it guarantees and protects them. The right to defend ourselves and our loved ones is one of those. The individual right to keep and bear arms is another. These truths are what define us as Americans. Yet, Judge Sotomayor takes an opposite view, contrary to the views of our Founding Fathers, the Supreme Court, and the vast majority of the American people.
[align=left]We believe any individual who does not agree that the Second Amendment guarantees a fundamental right and who does not respect our God-given right of self-defense should not serve on any court, much less the highest court in the land. Therefore, the National Rifle Association of America opposes the confirmation of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the position of Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court.[/align] [align=center]
- NRA -[/align] [align=left]
blank.gif
Copyright 2009, National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action.
This may be reproduced. It may not be reproduced for commercial purposes.
11250 Waples Mill Road, Fairfax, VA 22030 800-392-8683[/align]
 

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
imported post

From the outset, the National Rifle Association has respected the confirmation process and hoped for mainstream answers to bedrock questions. Unfortunately, Judge Sotomayor’s judicial record and testimony clearly demonstrate a hostile view of the Second Amendment and the fundamental right of self-defense guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution.
 

markand

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2006
Messages
512
Location
VA
imported post

The NRA probably came to the conclusion that Sotomayor will get confirmed no matter what they do and no matter when they do so. Perhaps they concluded it was a waste time fighting the inevitable. The forces of darkness and oppression in the Senate pretty much have enough votes to do whatever they want. I'm hoping and praying that Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito remain healthy and survive this president.
 

The Donkey

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2006
Messages
1,114
Location
Northern Virginia
imported post

After watching the confirmation hearings closely, I would be willing to bet that Sotomayor would vote in favor of incorporation of the Second Amendment unless the Maloney case is reviewed.

If Maloney goes forward she will recuse herself.

I also do not think that she will vote to overturn Heller: while she would probably have voted against it if she were on the Court last year, she now views it as settled law.
 

R a Z o R

Banned
Joined
Feb 5, 2009
Messages
861
Location
Rockingham, North Carolina, USA
imported post

The Donkey wrote:
After watching the confirmation hearings closely, I would be willing to bet that Sotomayor would vote in favor of incorporation of the Second Amendment unless the Maloney case is reviewed.

If Maloney goes forward she will recuse herself.

I also do not think that she will vote to overturn Heller: while she would probably have voted against it if she were on the Court last year, she now views it as settled law.
 

Thundar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
4,946
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
imported post

The Donkey wrote:
After watching the confirmation hearings closely, I would be willing to bet that Sotomayor would vote in favor of incorporation of the Second Amendment unless the Maloney case is reviewed.

If Maloney goes forward she will recuse herself.

I also do not think that she will vote to overturn Heller: while she would probably have voted against it if she were on the Court last year, she now views it as settled law.

The votes are there for incorporation with or without her.

That is not what scares many here Donkey and you know it.

Now that the 2A has been confirmed as an individual right there will be 30 years of future litigation before the Supreme Court over what that means, and have no doubt that Sotomayor will lead the charge toeviscerate the 2nd like SCOTUShas done to the 4th A.
 

borrowed time

Regular Member
Joined
May 9, 2008
Messages
54
Location
NE Wisconsin, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

Huck wrote:
Why did the NRA wait until the last minute to oppose this lamer?
True indeed, did they (NRA) think time would change her view on the second amendment. When questioned on the second, she brought up New York law; get this Sotomayer, you are nominated to the Supreme Court of the U. S., not the freaking state of New York. I really believe that the eastern part of the U.S. is a different country than where I live. If europeanism is what the east desires, give it to them. Separate us, I can live without wall street, bailing out AIG, government takeover of our society. Let us take back our country. Stand up.
 

Tomahawk

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2006
Messages
5,117
Location
4 hours south of HankT, ,
imported post

Huck wrote:
Why did the NRA wait until the last minute to oppose this lamer?

No one has yet to give a satisfying answer to this question.

If I had to guess, I'd say there was probably a debate among NRA leadership over whether to make a statement or remain silent.

Remaining silent would be par for the NRA course; NRA doesn't like to jump in front of losing causes, and Sotomayor is a done deal.

I suppose the other side of the argument was that if NRA doesn't say anything, they open themselves up to criticism for not having opposed the nomination, and may lose membership and money as a result.

Unless we hear from the NRA honchos (and we won't) it's all speculation, though.
 

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
imported post

Tomahawk wrote:
Huck wrote:
Why did the NRA wait until the last minute to oppose this lamer?

No one has yet to give a satisfying answer to this question.

If I had to guess, I'd say there was probably a debate among NRA leadership over whether to make a statement or remain silent.

Remaining silent would be par for the NRA course; NRA doesn't like to jump in front of losing causes, and Sotomayor is a done deal.

I suppose the other side of the argument was that if NRA doesn't say anything, they open themselves up to criticism for not having opposed the nomination, and may lose membership and money as a result.

Unless we hear from the NRA honchos (and we won't) it's all speculation, though.
Of course, you could always accept the statements the NRA honchos have provided for us, which I have quoted in this thread already.
 

Tomahawk

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2006
Messages
5,117
Location
4 hours south of HankT, ,
imported post

wrightme wrote:
Tomahawk wrote:
Huck wrote:
Why did the NRA wait until the last minute to oppose this lamer?

No one has yet to give a satisfying answer to this question.

If I had to guess, I'd say there was probably a debate among NRA leadership over whether to make a statement or remain silent.

Remaining silent would be par for the NRA course; NRA doesn't like to jump in front of losing causes, and Sotomayor is a done deal.

I suppose the other side of the argument was that if NRA doesn't say anything, they open themselves up to criticism for not having opposed the nomination, and may lose membership and money as a result.

Unless we hear from the NRA honchos (and we won't) it's all speculation, though.
Of course, you could always accept the statements the NRA honchos have provided for us, which I have quoted in this thread already.

Your honcho doesn't say why they waited until the last minute. So, no, the statements your honchos provided do not answer the question. Nor do they plan to.

But you keep sending them money and trolling the internet on their behalf, if you think that's best.
 

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
imported post

Tomahawk wrote:
wrightme wrote:
Tomahawk wrote:
Huck wrote:
Why did the NRA wait until the last minute to oppose this lamer?

No one has yet to give a satisfying answer to this question.

If I had to guess, I'd say there was probably a debate among NRA leadership over whether to make a statement or remain silent.

Remaining silent would be par for the NRA course; NRA doesn't like to jump in front of losing causes, and Sotomayor is a done deal.

I suppose the other side of the argument was that if NRA doesn't say anything, they open themselves up to criticism for not having opposed the nomination, and may lose membership and money as a result.

Unless we hear from the NRA honchos (and we won't) it's all speculation, though.
Of course, you could always accept the statements the NRA honchos have provided for us, which I have quoted in this thread already.

Your honcho doesn't say why they waited until the last minute. So, no, the statements your honchos provided do not answer the question. Nor do they plan to.

But you keep sending them money and trolling the internet on their behalf, if you think that's best.
No, I merely am willing to understand that they will not be likely to make the statements that you need to see to believe them. If you simply accept that they have stated their reasons and their position, they DID answer your question; just not to the level you desire. I understand their answer, and you seem to not.
 

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:
Believe nothing you read or hear without verifying it yourself unless it fits your preexisting worldview.

There are various levels of 'understanding' as there are more and less comprehensive worldviews.
LOL, I would disagree. There are various levels of "interpretation" and "opinion" based upon those worldviews. The statement is most likely to be factual. How a person interprets it and opines is where the difference is most likely. Otherwise, a person (such as you or tomahawk) is left alleging the statement is a falsehood.
 

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
imported post

Tomahawk wrote:
wrightme wrote:
Tomahawk wrote: Of course, you could always accept the statements the NRA honchos have provided for us, which I have quoted in this thread already.
Your honcho doesn't say why they waited until the last minute. So, no, the statements your honchos provided do not answer the question. Nor do they plan to.
But you keep sending them money and trolling the internet on their behalf, if you think that's best.
First off, the "honchos" in question are the NRA spokespersons, not "my" honchos.
The statements they have currently made, and which they have made in the past, clearly stated their reasons for the times of disclosure. Your choice to disagree or discount that statement (or statements) does not make them magically disappear. It merely shows that no matter what the NRA states, you will not accept it.
 

HankT

State Researcher
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
6,215
Location
Invisible Mode
imported post

The NRA is a weak-livered sellout group of political cronies who make a sham of having political power to represent gun owners.

If NRA is so 'politically powerful' why can't it get Sotomayor bounced out on her ear? Why didn't the all powerful NRA get the Sotomayor nomination ditched?

Hmmm?

Becausethe NRAis w-e-a-k. That's why.

The GOA is taking over for Obama's next SCOTUS nomination.

Step aside, NAR, The GOA will show you howto get thejob done.
 

FunkTrooper

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2009
Messages
584
Location
Eagle River, Alaska, USA
imported post

The NRA has made some bad press and people (antis) have made them appear to be the absolute in any political battle, I wonder if that might have played into them waiting so long. If you take them at their word they were just not wanting to speek up out of respect for the process. I personally don't care, it doesn't matter how I feel or the NRA feels it's out of my control when Obama picked her I knew it was over.
 

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
imported post

HankT wrote:
The NRA is a weak-livered sellout group of political cronies who make a sham of having political power to represent gun owners.

If NRA is so 'politically powerful' why can't it get Sotomayor bounced out on her ear? Why didn't the all powerful NRA get the Sotomayor nomination ditched?

Hmmm?

Becausethe NRAis w-e-a-k. That's why.

The GOA is taking over for Obama's next SCOTUS nomination.

Step aside, NAR, The GOA will show you howto get thejob done.
1/300th of the population does not have the clout you desire.

How many are in the GOA? The power is in the numbers.



Who here has made the claim that "the NRA is so 'politically powerful?' Strawman.
 

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
imported post

FunkTrooper wrote:
The NRA has made some bad press and people (antis) have made them appear to be the absolute in any political battle, I wonder if that might have played into them waiting so long. If you take them at their word they were just not wanting to speek up out of respect for the process. I personally don't care, it doesn't matter how I feel or the NRA feels it's out of my control when Obama picked her I knew it was over.
And many "anti-NRA" types here see bad press that points out NRA as being an organization of "compromise." Quite the dichotomy of views.

The Anti-gunners claim the NRA is "no compromise" on gun rights.

The Anti-NRAers claim the NRA is "compromise" on gun rights.

Each position is based mostly upon the world view of the person stating the position. The reality is likely somewhere in between those extremes.
 
Top