Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 13
  1. #1
    NES Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Central Ma.
    Posts
    6,068

    Default Ex-Justice Stevens on Gun Control

    STEVENS’ ON GUNS UNDERSCORES
    IMPORTANCE OF HIGH COURT NOMINEES

    BELLEVUE, WA – Monday’s high-profile prodding by retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens for Congress to do something, and for presidential candidates to say something, about gun control proves the importance of who is in the White House and the U.S. Senate to make and confirm high court nominations, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said today.

    Reuters reported that the retired justice was the speaker at Monday’s luncheon hosted by the anti-gun Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. Stevens wrote dissenting opinions on both the 2008 Heller ruling and the 2010 McDonald decision, both of which affirmed that the Second Amendment protects an individual civil right to keep and bear arms.

    “In both of his dissents,” noted CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb, “Justice Stevens contended that the right to keep and bear arms was limited to state militia service. It was, and remains, an astonishing position on a fundamental civil right.

    “What Justice Stevens’ speech clearly underscores,” he continued, “is the critical importance of who is president, not just for the next four years, but whenever a vacancy occurs on the high court. Imagine if Justice Stevens’ opinion had prevailed.”

    Stevens’ dissent in the Heller case was heavily criticized by the majority opinion, written by Justice Antonin Scalia. The majority ruling described Stevens’ arguments as “simply wrong,” and at one point – when addressing Stevens’ history of the Second Amendment – said that he “flatly misreads the historical record.”

    “Stevens’ replacement on the Supreme Court was liberal Elena Kagan,” Gottlieb noted. “A liberal, anti-gun majority could easily narrow, rather than expand, the scope of our Second Amendment. That’s why it is, and always will be, important for gun owners to have a pro-gun-rights president and pro-gun majority in the Senate, especially on the Judiciary Committee.”

  2. #2
    NES Member EC1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Somewhere
    Posts
    3,795

    Default

    Why is it when Liberals and especially liberal democrats leave office they can never do so with grace and silence? refer, the above justice, James E. Carter, William J. Clinton, to name a few
    NRA Patron Member
    G.O.A.L. Member
    NRA Certified Instructor
    MA State Police Certified Instructor
    NRA Range Safety Officer

  3. #3
    Jose
    Guest

    Default

    Like petulant little girls, they cannot accept defeat or disagreement.

  4. #4
    NES Member Acujeff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    439

    Default

    We were fortunate that 5 Supreme Court Justices in Heller and McDonald confirmed the Second Amendment as an individual right to armed self defense and must be applied to all levels of government. And, in case you forgot, we were fortunate that Bush, often labeled not pro-2A enough, appointed Alito and Roberts as Justices to make that pro-Second Amendment majority and obtain that opinion.

    However, the minority opinion by the other four Justices was that the Second Amendment:

    - did not protect a private right of armed self-defense
    - does not apply to the states
    - does not apply to individuals outside of the militia context

    If there were five, instead of four, anti-Second Amendment Justices the RKBA would have been effectively written out of the Bill of Rights.

    It could still happen. The composition of the Court can change and prior decisions can be overturned.

    Four US Supreme Court Justices (Scalia, Kennedy, Breyer and Ginsburg) will be 80 or older, and two, Thomas and Alito above 65, by the end of Obama's second term. He could likely appoint 4 more Justices if he is re-elected - all of whom will be making momentous decisions about our lives for decades to come. An anti-2A Court would be free to re-define and dismantle the RKBA out of existence. The current anti-2A Justices have already stated their intention to do exactly that.

    Anti-Second Amendment Justice Ginsberg has stated that the majority opinions in this case are “grievously mistaken”, that minority opinions would be used to rewrite legal history and create a purely “collective right connected to the militia” and she looks forward to the day a “future, wiser court“ overturns Heller. John Paul Stevens recently told Time magazine the one thing in particular he would change about the American judicial system “I would change the interpretation of the Second Amendment. The court got that quite wrong.”

    Obama appointed anti-Second Amendment Justices, Sotomayor and Kagan. Given the opportunity he will do it again. All they need is one more like minded Justice to get a majority of five anti’s and implement their stated agenda through the courts.

    If that happens we’ll never see a pro-RKBA victory again in our lifetime.

    There are already more RKBA cases headed to the Supreme Court involving the private right of carry and armed self-defense outside the home, the heavy restrictions in places like Chicago and Washington DC, whether police can arbitrarily deny firearm permits to law abiding applicants, and whether governments can ban entire classes of popular firearms.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...the-obama-era/

    In addition, since taking office, Obama has appointed 125 anti-RKBA liberals to federal judgeships, including 25 to appellate courts. At present, there are 86 vacancies on district and appellate courts, 39 of which already have pending nominees before the Senate. It’s not in gun owners best interests to give him a second term and the opportunity to appoint more anti-2A judges and justices.

    Romney has a much better record and a much better choice for gun owners than Obama. He is campaigning on appointing pro-2A conservative Supreme Court Justices like Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito. While Justices don't always vote the same way, these four Justices have consistently ruled in favor of the RKBA.

    http://www.mittromney.com/issues/courts-constitution
    http://washingtonexaminer.com/gop-se...rticle/2506043
    __________________________________________________ ______

    Read free online NRA's "America's First Freedom" monthly magazine for the most consistent in-depth reporting on RKBA issues, laws and politics:
    http://www.nrapublications.org/index.php/first-freedom/

    Subscribe free NRA-ILA Legislative and RKBA e-mail alerts:
    https://www.nraila.org/get-involved-...-informed.aspx

    Subscribe free GOAL Members Friday E-Mail Newsletter:
    http://goal.org/joinourlist.html

  5. #5
    Road Warrior Zappa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Finally Free In The 603
    Posts
    24,609

    Default

    I was thinking about this today, what if Obama loses the election and Ginsberg decides to retire before Romneys inaguration, does Obama get to fill that seat as a lame duck ???

    "Politicians Are Like Diapers, They Should Be Changed Often, And For The Same Reason"

  6. #6
    NES Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Western 'burbs
    Posts
    709

    Default

    Can't imagine the replacement would get through confirmation hearings in time.

  7. #7
    Road Warrior Zappa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Finally Free In The 603
    Posts
    24,609

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CdP View Post
    Can't imagine the replacement would get through confirmation hearings in time.
    Is the SCOTUS allowed to render decisions without a full bench ???

    "Politicians Are Like Diapers, They Should Be Changed Often, And For The Same Reason"

  8. #8

    Default

    This is nice and all but what do you do when one candidate has enacted an AWB, and wants to do it again, and the other has never done it, but wants to do it for the first time? Both support Patriot Act, NDAA, Socialized medicine, etc.


    You're pretty much getting another kagan from the R or D.

  9. #9

    Default

    Stevens, and rest of the moonbat wing of the court are mentally deficient. He could have at least made a compelling argument about "reasonable restrictions" or some bullshit like that, that while, clearly unconstitutional, would have at least not made him look like a complete retard.

    -Mike

  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by seth72 View Post
    This is nice and all but what do you do when one candidate has enacted an AWB, and wants to do it again, and the other has never done it, but wants to do it for the first time? Both support Patriot Act, NDAA, Socialized medicine, etc.
    The real risk with Romney is if he finds a Kennedy style weeble wobble that he can get the senate to suck for.... then it is a matter of praying that the weebler he nominates at least is OK on the 2nd.

    -Mike

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •