rssNo Voice for Gun Control at Sotomayor Hearings
Friday, July 17, 2009 at 10:15 am
- 3 Comments
After I wrote my earlier posts about how the National Rifle Association opposes the confirmation of Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court and explaining the “incorporation” debate that dominated much of the Second Amendment discussion at the hearing, I got a note from the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, whose concerns were decidedly NOT represented in the Senate Judiciary Committee this week.
Although surely plenty of senators agree with the idea of preventing gun violence, it’s a testament to how influential the NRA has become that no one had the courage to ask Sotomayor to explain the inherent reasonableness of regulating firearms in a country where more than 50 children are killed every week by guns.
Here’s what the Brady Campaign had to say about the NRA’s statement and Sotomayor’s nomination:
“During the second day of her Senate confirmation hearings, Judge Sotomayor has now been asked for her views on the Second Amendment. She has given clear and responsible answers, while not pre-judging any issues that may come before her on the Court. We have been impressed with her presentation.
“In stark contrast, gun lobby extremists have revealed their preference for an activist Supreme Court Justice who would support their ‘any gun, anywhere, anytime’ ideology. Judge Sotomayor’s comments today as well as her judicial opinions in cases involving gun laws, however, show respect for the Constitution, for precedent and for the considered judgments of legislative bodies in protecting communities from gun violence.
“Judge Sotomayor’s background and her experience as a prosecutor have given her an invaluable understanding of the devastating impact of gun violence on families and communities. Because of her experience enforcing gun laws, she brings to the bench an appreciation of the importance of those laws in protecting our citizens.
“The Brady Campaign enthusiastically endorses Judge Sonia Sotomayor for the position of Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court.” [The Brady Campaign's emphasis, not mine.]
It’s worth noting that despite harsh and one-sided questioning on the Second Amendment issue, Sotomayor was careful never to say how she’d vote on the matter were it to come before the Supreme Court — which it very likely will during her expected tenure. Although she’s ruled in the past that there is no “fundamental” right of an individual to bear arms that’s enforceable against state governments, the court opinion she signed onto carefully explained that the court believed that result was mandated by Supreme Court and Second Circuit precedent. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, in an opinion by the conservative Chief Judge Frank Easterbrook, has reached the same conclusion.
The Supreme Court could rule differently, however, and given that its latest ruling on the gun issue was a 5-4 decision, Sotomayor’s position on the issue is important. Even if Sotomayor rules as the Brady campaign might hope, though, NRA supporters could win the day if the key gun question — whether there’s a “fundamental right” to possess a gun that’s enforceable against the states — reaches the court before President Obama gets to appoint another justice.
–
3 Comments
Comment posted July 17, 2009 @ 3:22 pm
Gun control does nothing to prevent criminals from using guns. It only penalized law-abiding citizens for owning them. If I didnt like the right to free speech, thats would be my problem and not liking it does not give me the right to change the US Constitution for everyone else. The same applies for the second ammendment. If Guns were Outlawed, only Outlaws would have guns! Thats the fact.
Comment posted July 17, 2009 @ 11:56 pm
The 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 refuge 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 the 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.
Comment posted January 5, 2011 @ 1:58 pm
A year late, but I like part of your thinking. You are right that gun control is useless against criminals. A shame that your nation with its hard working people allowed your citizens to become sheep.
Your logic of voting for Obama because of Palin “being a simpleton” holds no water whatsoever. Obama ran against McCain, not Palin. Palin would be VP, not President. And how do you call Palin a simpleton when Obama has Joe Biden on his team. Joe Biden is a jackass if I ever saw one. The only people dumber than him are the voters who kept sending him to Washington all these years. As for Obama himself, read any of his writings, look at his influences and the people he’s hung out with. He’s a socialist through & through, & I suspect a closet Muslim as well. Yet you voted for him.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
