NRA Opposes Sotomayor Nomination

By
Thursday, July 16, 2009 at 3:15 pm

Although the National Rifle Association has — at least officially — stayed out of this fight until now (though judging from some senators’ heavy questioning on gun issues, it was clearly weighing in behind the scenes), this afternoon the group issued a statement saying it would oppose the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, based on her decision in the case of Maloney v. Cuomo, in which she and her Second Circuit colleagues found that there was no fundamental right to bear arms guaranteed by the Second Amendment that is enforceable against the states.

Wayne LaPierre, Executive Vice President of the National Rifle Association, and Chris Cox, Executive Director for the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action said this in explanation:

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.

The full statement is here.

Comments

4 Comments

Interested
Comment posted July 16, 2009 @ 7:55 pm

I wasn't aware that the words “self defense” appear in the text of the Second Amendment. Perhaps the “penumbra” of the amendment guarantees that right. Then again, LaPeirre has argued that the 14th amendment grants human rights to guns.

I guess the NRA believes that criminal defendants have a God-given right to demand a jury instruction that when they murdered someone in cold blood that it was in self-defense.


ABC
Comment posted July 16, 2009 @ 8:57 pm

This is bizarre. I think there is an individual right to bear arms, but the Supreme Court for 220 years didn't agree. Then in DC v Heller the Supreme Court changed its mind, but DC v. Heller didn't incorporate the 2nd Amendment against the states. So the Second Circuit merely applied precedent. To do otherwise would be to legislate from the bench, which I thought conservatives were against.


toptwome
Comment posted July 16, 2009 @ 11:32 pm

Since the NRA is more or less a branch of the republican party it is just too too bad they don't approve of anything or anyone who is not nice and white and mainly a good ole boy.


danamman
Comment posted July 18, 2009 @ 12:11 am

he country of Denmark with its stringent gun control laws used to be a relatively gun free and peaceful little land up until about 1991. That changed dramatically after the implementation of the Schengen Agreement where 25 of the EU countries opened their boarders to unchecked crossings. Then, from areas where there had been virtually no gun control, the Romanians, Poles, Slovaks, Armenians, Hungarians, Czechs, Latvians and god all, began migrating throughout the previously 'Western' European lands. Every criminal element made their way in, unchecked, with truckloads of firearms. Every refugee element already in place throughout the Western EU, and all those arriving – Palestinians, Iranians etc., could now easily posses a gun. The motorcycle 'clubs' like the Hell's Angles and Banditos were now getting armed to the teeth, even with RPGs. Overnight, little Denmark turned into a shooting gallery where all the scum bags were loose doing armed robberies, bank holdups and waging war against each other without regard for the innocent civilians caught in the crossfire. I know this firsthand because until recently I lived in Denmark for 21 years.

Denmark became the Perfect Storm of how gun control means only the criminals have guns. The every day law-abiding Danish citizen still may not legally own a gun for self protection, while all around them every low life is armed and threatening. But Denmark has been a socialist country for hundreds of years, and for Socialism to succeed it is an inherent requirement that the populace give up certain rights and freedoms that we Americans otherwise enjoy in a free and open Democracy. The Danes successfully accomplished gun control because the citizenry agreed with these limitations on 'normal' freedoms and rights, i.e. it is permitted for the authorities to search cars and homes without warrants, and the punishment for an illegal gun is harsh.

But now the situation has gone bonkers and gun control for the peaceful Dane is no longer a viable application. There are now so many guns in the hands of so many criminals that the idea of enforcement through the application of Socialism is impossible. It has gone way beyond the ability of law enforcement to ever regain control. So, while the good Dane goes naked, only the filthy scum are packing.

I voted Obama mainly because I thought Palin is a simpleton. But with Sotomayor coming in I'm having grave doubts. If she succeeds in restricting the 2nd Amendment I will see it only as an Obama ploy. He could try to shrug her off as the scapegoat, but he put her up for it and if she screws with gun control then Obama will have shot himself in the foot. I seriously doubt he would see a second term. And I'd vote for Palin anyway in that case.


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.