Springtime in the Smoky Mountains
Showing posts with label Gun Owners of America. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Gun Owners of America. Show all posts

Wednesday, July 15, 2009

From Our Mail: Sotomayor Takes Axe to Second Amendment -- Won't Answer Whether She Believes There's a Right to Self-Defense

From: Gun Owners of America

Re: U.S. Senate must vote NO on Judge Sonia Sotomayor!

In defending her decision that the states could enact any form of gun control they wished -- with absolutely no regard to the Second Amendment -- Judge Sonya Sotomayor has developed a new love for Nineteenth Century court opinions.

Demonstrating that she was programmed in her responses, Sotomayor defended one of her earlier legal opinions by citing "footnote 23" of Justice Antonin Scalia's opinion in the DC v. Heller case last year.

But, when pressed by questioner Orrin Hatch yesterday, Sotomayor could not recite the contents of that footnote or the holdings of the cases which it cited. As it turns out, the footnote on which Sotomayor claims to rely, cited -- without approval -- two Nineteenth Century cases which rejected the notion that the Second Amendment was 'incorporated' to apply to the states.

But those were also the days when the Supreme Court held that the rights protected in the First Amendment did not apply to the states. Apparently, Sotomayor wants to base her anti-gun philosophy on antiquated decisions from an era when the U.S. Supreme Court was spitting out racist decisions.

Her answers got even worse today when Republican Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma asked her, point blank, "Is there a constitutional right to self-defense?" Sotomayor said that was an "abstract question" and that she couldn't think of a Supreme Court case that addressed that issue.

Coburn said he didn't want a legal treatise on what Supreme Court holdings have said, rather, he wanted her own personal opinion. Sotomayor would not answer the question, although when pressed, she equated self-defense with vigilantism!

Folks, do you see how important it is to stop this nomination? GOA mailed its members postcards opposing Sotomayor not too long ago. Please make sure you have mailed those in. We need a multi-pronged offensive right now where our Senators are receiving snail mail, email and phone calls.

And, we need ALL PRO-GUN ORGANIZATIONS to take a stance AGAINST this nominee.

Organizational spokesmen can talk a good game and say they have serious "concerns" about Sotomayor. That's all well and good. But unless those organizations (big and small) rate each Senator's vote on Sotomayor -- when she's clearly anti-gun -- then those supposed "concerns" are just meaningless.

Senators have to hear from ALL the pro-gun organizations -- big and small -- that they are going to rate this vote during the 2010 election. Otherwise, those organizations are just Paper Tigers.

We can't let this anti-gun judge infiltrate U.S. Supreme Court! She is dangerous on so many levels -- but, especially, on Second Amendment rights.

GOA considers her nomination to be of the most important gun votes in the HISTORY of the US Senate. We can't think of any other nominee in recent history who has taken such a horrid stand on the basic right of self-defense.

She says that she will follow the precedent in the DC v. Heller (2008) case. But even if she does, that only means that she will vote to apply the Second Amendment in Washington, DC. She has already ruled this year in Maloney v. Cuomo that the amendment doesn't apply to where you live.

Tim Macy, Vice-Chairman of Gun Owners of America

ACTION: We need to "pull out the stops" to defeat this nominee. Please contact your two U.S. Senators today and urge them to VOTE NO on Judge Sonia Sotomayor.

Please use the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at
http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your Senators the pre-written e-mail message below.
----- Pre-written letter -----

Dear Senator:

Even though President Obama is extremely anti-gun, I still started with an open mind regarding his nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor. But after her testimony these past two days, there is no way that she should be confirmed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

When asked by Senator Tom Coburn if there was a right to self-defense, Sotomayor said that was an "abstract question." Sotomayor would not answer directly, although when pressed, she equated self-defense with vigilantism!

How can the Senate confirm a judge to the U.S. Supreme Court who does not believe in the rights that are EXPLICITLY stated in the Bill of Rights?

I also want you to know that Gun Owners of America will heavily score any vote related to the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor -- whether it's a vote on cloture or final passage -- for its rating in 2010.

Moreover, GOA is going to publish its rating so that millions of Americans can see how their Senators voted on this most important vote.

GOA has told me that it considers the Sotomayor nomination to be one of the most significant gun votes in the HISTORY of the US Senate, as there has been no other nominee in recent history who has taken such a horrid stand on the basic right of self-defense.


Friday, May 15, 2009

From Our Mail: Lindsey Graham Representing Massachusetts Again

From: Gun Owners of America

Re: Graham Sponsoring Bill That Will Result in National Anti-Gun Database

Friday, May 15, 2009

Do you know what your supposedly "Republican" senator is doing right now?

Well, it turns out that Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina is also leading the "hit parade" on behalf of legislation which would expand the scope of government in a way unprecedented in human history -- and which would place your most private medical data into an anti-gun database.

Hard to believe?

But there he is: Sen. Graham is right up there with certifiable liberals like left wing Oregon Democrat Ron Wyden and left wing Michigan Democrat Debbie Stabenow.

The bill is S. 391, and it is being pushed by some Republicans as an alternative to the Health Care Gun Ban that we've been warning you about.

S. 391 does a hodgepodge of things, but by far the most important one is to "solve" the problem of 48 million uninsured by taking away the right of Americans not to purchase government-approved insurance.

If you are uninsured, you would have to buy health insurance, whether you can afford it or not. If your employer is not unionized, he would have to retool your employer-provided health insurance policy to comply with government requirements.

If your employer cannot afford government-approved insurance with all of the politically correct bells and whistles, too bad. His only legal alternative is to fire you.

If you cannot afford government-approved insurance, too bad.

If you have to lose your home -- or your small business -- or your kids' college fund -- in order to pay for government-approved insurance, too bad.

And like the Massachusetts system on which it is modeled, the federally mandated insurance would inexorably revolve around a federal database of medical information that you could not opt out of.

So, remember when your kid's pediatrician asked him about your gun collection? Or when you grandfather was diagnosed with a mental disability which could disqualify him from owning a gun?

All of that will be in the federal database, which could be searched by virtually anyone in the Department of Health and Human Services -- and by BATF, by simple request.

And, although section 103 of S. 391 purports to allow you to keep the coverage you have, all employer-provided insurance which you wish to keep has to be rewritten to contain all the government-required mandates -- or you're not allowed to keep it.

ACTION: Contact Senator Graham and urge him to remove his cosponsorship from S. 391. Please use his webform at http://lgraham.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.EmailSenatorGraham to do so.