Results 1 to 10 of 13
10-17-2012, 11:09 AM #1
- Join Date
- Mar 2005
- Central Ma.
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.”
10-17-2012, 11:17 AM #2
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 fewNRA Patron Member
NRA Certified Instructor
MA State Police Certified Instructor
NRA Range Safety Officer
10-17-2012, 11:19 AM #3JoseGuest
Like petulant little girls, they cannot accept defeat or disagreement.
10-17-2012, 10:51 PM #4
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.
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.
Read free online NRA's "America's First Freedom" monthly magazine for the most consistent in-depth reporting on RKBA issues, laws and politics:
Subscribe free NRA-ILA Legislative and RKBA e-mail alerts:
Subscribe free GOAL Members Friday E-Mail Newsletter:
10-17-2012, 11:11 PM #5
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"
10-17-2012, 11:15 PM #6
- Join Date
- Oct 2010
- Western 'burbs
Can't imagine the replacement would get through confirmation hearings in time.
10-17-2012, 11:19 PM #7
10-17-2012, 11:20 PM #8
- Join Date
- Apr 2008
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.
10-17-2012, 11:22 PM #9
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.
10-17-2012, 11:27 PM #10