Obama Picks Sotomayor in Anti-Gun Court Strategy
BELLEVUE, WA – Failing to get traction for his anti-gun agenda in Congress,
Barack Obama is trying instead to stack the federal courts with liberal
anti-gunners, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said
today.
“President Obama’s gun prohibitionist agenda has fallen on deaf
ears on Capitol Hill,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. “His administration’s
attempt to revive the ban on semiautomatic sporting rifles by exploiting the
Mexican drug war was a bust. He had to sign legislation allowing guns for
personal protection in national parks, even after his Justice Department refused
to defend the Interior Department against a lawsuit that prevented an earlier
firearms rule from taking effect.
“But now he is picking judicial
nominees that will almost certainly legislate from the bench,” he continued.
“Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor has already ruled that the Second
Amendment does not apply to the states. We’ve learned that Sotomayor’s
nomination is supported by ACORN, the publicly-funded anti-gun group that
supported a Jersey City gun control ordinance that was struck down by the court.
“Obama’s nomination of David Hamilton to a position on the Seventh
Circuit Court of Appeals is equally troubling,” Gottlieb added, “because
Hamilton reportedly is a former ACORN fundraiser. Even the president once worked
with the anti-gun rights ACORN as a leadership trainer.
“Seventy years
ago, President Franklin D. Roosevelt tried to stack the Supreme Court to push
his social agenda, and he failed,” Gottlieb recalled. “President Obama tried to
use his cabinet to rally support for a gun ban renewal and he failed, so now
he’s planning to stack the courts with anti-gun ACORN nominees.
“America
has had enough Left-wing judicial activism from the federal bench,” he
concluded. “In Judge Sotomayor’s own words, ‘I don’t believe we should bend the
Constitution under any circumstances. It says what it says. We should do honor
to it.’ That includes honoring the Second Amendment. It does not include
manipulating the courts to accomplish from the bench what cannot be achieved
through Congress.”
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
The anti-gun establishment is trying to do an end around and load the Supreme Court with anti-gun people. Heaven forbid that the Supreme Court or Congress would ever produce a law that tries to take guns from all law abiding citizens directly disobeying the U.S Constitution. Those citizens have learned from what occurred in Australia and England and will not let that happen in our country. The Second Amendment will not be allowed to be cast aside. If it is, the ruling class will then be able to do whatever they please and all citizens will be become serfs or subjects, just short of being slaves.
Those law abiding citizens will suddenly become law breakers since that new gun confiscation law would not of course be Constitutional. They would not willingly give up their guns and tens of thousands of people would be killed for no reason. Gun violence is actually decreasing in the U.S. year after year and there is no reason to be an anti-gun zealot. Also, the fact that most Americans are heavily armed keeps anyone and everyone from attempting to attack our great country. Gun ownerwhip stopped the Japanese from attacking the U.S and also anyone one else who has even thought of doing it since WW II.
The anti-gun establishment is trying to do an end around and load the Supreme Court with anti-gun people. Heaven forbid that the Supreme Court or Congress would ever produce a law that tries to take guns from all law abiding citizens directly disobeying the U.S Constitution. Those citizens have learned from what occurred in Australia and England and will not let that happen in our country. The Second Amendment will not be allowed to be cast aside. If it is, the ruling class will then be able to do whatever they please and all citizens will be become serfs or subjects, just short of being slaves.
Those law abiding citizens will suddenly become law breakers since that new gun confiscation law would not of course be Constitutional. They would not willingly give up their guns and tens of thousands of people would be killed for no reason. Gun violence is actually decreasing in the U.S. year after year and there is no reason to be an anti-gun zealot. Also, the fact that most Americans are heavily armed keeps anyone and everyone from attempting to attack our great country. Gun ownerwhip stopped the Japanese from attacking the U.S and also anyone one else who has even thought of doing it since WW II.
BO's history on firearms issues belies the current belief he is a moderate. His primary advisors (Emmanual, et.al.) and the (un)Holy icons of the Democrat Party (SCUBA Ted, DeeDee, Babs, Frankie, Joey) are all rabid antigunners.
From about 1998 (when Josh Sugarman coined the term "Assault Weapons" to confuse the general public about the nature of semiautomatic firearms) on through to 1994, when sick Willy pushed Congress into the AWB, we were treated to liberals in politics expending their political capital on gun control .
Since that time, the availability of the Internet for widespread communitation of the counterpoints--not to mention unbiased facts--the profirearms community has coalesced like it never could before.
If this means finding an antigunner among the usual suspects, so be it. BO's support operations contains some of the most intelligent political operatives in either party. To underestimate their scheming for whatever antigun agenda they can promote is foolish.
BO will most likely appoint at least two SC judges. Why would I expect his picks to be anyone other than siding with his kind of judicial activism?
gun control: the belief that a woman raped and strangled with her own hose is morally superior to one who defends herself with a firearm.
"semiautomatic sporting rifles" - not fully automatic assault rifles like the AR-15 (civilian version of the M-16)
"gun prohibitionist agenda" - wants to ban assault rifles... errr semiautomatic 'sporting' rifles, which is bad because the constitution 'obviously' means that we can own anything that fires small non explosive munitions... No matter what
"ACORN" - a front organization for Satan, who is apparently anti-gun. They support people that also support banning certain guns , and since they're a conservative's favorite punching bag, we must demonize anyone they support... by mentioning that ACORN supports them
"a publicly funded anti-gun group" - they aren't with us, so they're against us and btw, public funding should only go to pro gun groups:
"liberal anti gunners" - >>>> LEEEBBIIRRRALLLSSSSS <<<<
"exploiting the Mexican drug war " - pay no attention to the war behind the curtain!!! Whatever weapons they use is not our problem! Yes, even if a third of them are our 'sporting' rifles
"Left-wing judicial activism" - any judicial decision that doesn't agree with our interpretation of the constitution.
"I don't believe we shoud bend the constitution under any circumstances" - I don't believe liberals should be allowed to be a judge or read the constitution under any circumstances, because liberals don't agree with my conservative viewpoints.
"FDR tried to stack the supreme court to push his social agenda, and he failed." - FDR was an idiot, our boy Eisenhower firgured out he can push an agenda with executive orders! FDR tried to push his agenda through judicial channels... and that's baaadd!
Typically NRA style anti liberal smack talk baby!
Even avid gunnies tend to take CCRKBA press releases with a grain of salt, if only because of the format. However, I would never accuse Alan Gottlieb of being an NRA stylist.
Unfortunately, you were tonguetied when you wrote your comments--weren't you? The AR-15 is indeed the semiauto version of the select-fire M16. At least, I hope that inversion was not a deliberate error. Tell me someone speaking for a liberal position on firearms would not lie.
As for firearms under the definition of the 2nd Amendment suitable for citizen ownership and use--those are fairly well constrained by Heller as well as by current law . We shall see what will be acceptable. IOW, this argument is a straw man.
And so on. Unfortunately U.S. political liberalism has indelibly associated itself with an antigun position by preferring to demonize the object rather than the act.
Then there are those errors of logic--but I will let you try to identify them for yourself.
gun control: the belief that a woman raped and strangled with her own hose is morally superior to one who defends herself with a firearm.
That entire post was liberal humor but I didn't make up anything. And I don't care if normal NRA folks take them with a grain of salt, I'm not attacking you or your 'moderate' brethren in this post, I'm attacking these ridiculous folks penning articles. Just because you don't take them seriously doesn't mean we shouldn't take their words as convicted words. They mean it and should be called out on it. Most liberals are trying to ban useless-to-a-civilian assault rifles and harbingers of death, not 30-06's and shotguns! I will never stay quiet when someone makes it seem like liberals and Democrats are out to just take all firearms away so they can take away your Ouse without a fight. It's patently absurd and quiet frankly, this kind of rhetoric is EXACTLY what got those three cops gunned down earlier this year.
I don't have any problem with sporting weapons, I grew up with a gun case in my dads bedroom and a consistently empty, at season's end, hunters license, but I can't find a reason in the world for granting a license to own an AR-15 to a civilian. Because it gets your rocks off at the shooting range is not a valid reason to own a weapon that serves absolutely no purpose other than to kill lots of things quickly. No real sportsman has a need for semiautomatic assault rifles, and they are NOT sporting.
Since when do liberals not condemn the violence dished out by firearm bearing criminals? How many kids in your neighborhood have been gunned down by driveby shootings. Last I checked, real sporting rifles aren't the weapons of choice for real criminals when Uzi's and AR-15's are available.
I guess you might consider me a moderate with 2nd ammendment rights. I absolutely support the right of law abiding, mentally stable, citizens to 'keep and bear arms,' but I don't think that right is unconditional, nor do I appreciate being considered "rabidly antigun" just because I think 'type' of 'arm' matters and haven't read "including rapid-fire assault rifles" in the Constitution anywhere.
You are repeating lies. So, is there a difference? You are repeating inaccurate information--information you may accept as "fact" but which is nothing more than opinion.
What you are calling assault rifles is what has been politically defined as an "assault weapon." An assault rifle has a very specific definition within the firearms lexicon: a smaller (carbine-sized) rifle using intermediate-power carridges and capable of selec fire. Period. In the US, they are have been regulated since 1934 as machine guns . 'Assault Weapons' are firearms specifically defined in the 1994 ACT. They are semiautomatic rifles of the same nominal caliber and have they have certain "features" politically based on appearance, and the term has been used primarily to promote negative connotations to this appearance. You know--kind of like racism .
An M-16 (select fire) is a miliary weapon. An AR-15 (or various other names) is a semiautomatic rifle that may even look similar, and it may even fire nominally the same cartridge (there is a difference between NATO 5.56 and .223 Remington), but it is not the same firearm. As such, it is available to civilians--and should be. The 2nd Amendment says nothing about "usage," just as the First Amendment does not require quill pens and parchment paper to offer opinions.
As for sporting use of this categories of firearm, that there is a wide range of competition shooting with these firearms--the Army Marksmanship Unit competes at Camp Perry, as do civilians--in various long range target shooting contests--and the firearm / cartridge is acceptable in some states for deer hunting.
Josh Sugarman started this assault rifle / assault weapon issue in 1988, in a deliberate attempt to confuse the general public (of any political perspective) about the nature of firearms. He said:
"[Assault weapons'] menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully-automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons -- anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun -- can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons."
As for rifles being used by 'real criminals', they remain a quite small part (under 1%, IIRC) of the firearms criminally used. Period. The media reporting of such usage is hype, again intended (willfully by some--see ABC, MSNBC, etc.)--to sway public opinion. Indeed, this reporting would not even exist were it not for the labelling of certain rifles as 'assault weapons.' The gun control crowd, fronted by the Brady Bunch, has proceeded to capitalize on violence using firearms with a whole range of deceptions--and you have bought into these deceptions, it appears. I suggest you reexamine your preconceptions.
As for your contention that Democrats and Political liberals do NOT intend to take away firearms, I simply suggest you look at the public record of the Democrat Party icons--SCUBA Ted Kennedy, Dee Feinstein, et.al.--and in particular, look at their statements upon the successful passage of sick Willy's 1994 AWB:
"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an out right ban, picking up every one of them... "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it."
Her most recent statement on her legislative efforts is:
"I will pick the time, and will pick the place and I will bring back the Clinton gun ban..."
You may consider yourself a moderate--and by liberal terms you are, IMO, but in the public-at-large, you are not. No less than six national polls since November 08 show less interest in more gun control.
Since you've identified yourself as a Democrat and a Liberal--it is probably time to understand just what that identification is in its unvarnished version.
Jim Jones would be proud of how many "liberals" have drunk the antigun Kool-Aid.
gun control: the belief that a woman raped and strangled with her own hose is morally superior to one who defends herself with a firearm.
I'm writing on my cell phone so please excuse the minefield of grammar, verbiage, and spelling mistakes. I can't scroll up the text box so it's impossible to proofread longer posts than this one here. That may be why I seem tongue tied sometimes too. Sorry.