NRA Joint Statement on Supreme Court Nominee Sonia Sotomayor

Jul 17, 2009 by

Joint Statement
Wayne Lapierre, Executive Vice President, National Rifle Association
And
Chris W. Cox, Executive Director, National Rifle Association – Institute For Legislative Action
On
Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s Nomination To The United States Supreme Court

Other than declaring war, neither house of Congress has a more solemn responsibility than the Senate’s role in confirming justices to the U.S. Supreme Court. As the Senate considers the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor, Americans have been watching to see whether this nominee – if confirmed – would respect the Second Amendment or side with those who have declared war on the rights of America’s 80 million gun owners.

From the outset, the National Rifle Association has respected the confirmation process and hoped for mainstream answers to bedrock questions.  Unfortunately, Judge Sotomayor’s judicial record and testimony clearly demonstrate a hostile view of the Second Amendment and the fundamental right of self-defense guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution.

It is only by ignoring history that any judge can say that the Second Amendment is not a fundamental right and does not apply to the states. The one part of the Bill of Rights that Congress clearly intended to apply to all Americans in passing the Fourteenth Amendment was the Second Amendment.  History and congressional debate are clear on this point.

Yet Judge Sotomayor seems to believe that the Second Amendment is limited only to the residents of federal enclaves such as Washington, D.C. and does not protect all Americans living in every corner of this nation.  In her Maloney opinion and during the confirmation hearings, she deliberately misread Supreme Court precedent to support her incorrect view.

In last year’s historic Heller decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment guarantees the individual’s right to own firearms and recognizes the inherent right of self-defense.  In addition, the Court required lower courts to apply the Twentieth Century cases it has used to incorporate a majority of the Bill of Rights to the States.  Yet in her Maloney opinion, Judge Sotomayor dismissed that requirement, mistakenly relying instead on Nineteenth Century jurisprudence to hold that the Second Amendment does not apply to the States.

This nation was founded on a set of fundamental freedoms. Our Constitution does not give us those freedoms – it guarantees and protects them. The right to defend ourselves and our loved ones is one of those. The individual right to keep and bear arms is another. These truths are what define us as Americans. Yet, Judge Sotomayor takes an opposite view, contrary to the views of our Founding Fathers, the Supreme Court, and the vast majority of the American people.

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.

read more

First they register your guns, then they confiscate them.

Jun 11, 2009 by

confiscationLately I find myself writing more and more about second amendment issues. Despite what the Democrats and the Obama administration are saying publicly, their ultimate aim is to take away guns from law-abiding Americans. Despite a recent Gallup poll which shows that only 29 percent favor handgun bans, even the will of the people will not deter the Democrats from their objective of disarming Americans and making a mockery of the second amendment.

It has been stated that the second amendment is the most important amendment because it ensures all the other amendments. A disarmed America will not be able to resist a tyrannical, socialist government bent on subjugating its citizens. And if you think the idea of a tyrannical dictatorship happening in America is ludicrous, you need look no farther than what happened in Germany with Adolf Hitler. Something similar could all to easily happen here.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced on ABC’s “Good Morning America” that she wants to register guns. When asked about the prospect of new gun-control laws she responded:

It’s a Democratic president, a Democratic House. We don’t want to take their guns away. We want them registered.

But why do Democrats want to register guns? They have long claimed that registration helps solve crimes. Yet in places where gun registration is required, few if any crimes have been solved through gun registration. When guns are left behind at a crime scene, which rarely happens, they are almost always registered to someone else, whose gun has been stolen. Those who use guns to commit major crimes are unlikely to have a firearm that is registered to them.

Hawaii has had licensing and registration of guns for about 50 years. Yet despite all the costs and inconvenience imposed on gun owners, police in Hawaii cannot point to a single crime that has been solved by gun registration.

Canada, which has required registration of handguns since the 1930’s, admitted recently in a parliamentary debate that only 3 crimes in 70 years had been solved as a result of registration. Of those 3 cases, 2 of them had other independent evidence which helped solve the crimes.

Since it is obvious that registration does not help to solve crimes, it is necessary to ask why governments want to register your firearms. Once again all you have to do is look to history for the answer. In countries like England and Australia gun registration has been used to create lists of owners whose guns were later confiscated by their governments. Fears that gun registration in America will be used for the same purpose are well founded. California has already used existing registration lists to confiscate so-called “assault weapons” just six years ago.

And despite the recent Supreme Court DC v. Heller 5-4 decision which struck down the District’s handgun ban, all it takes is another liberal justice (Sonia Sotomayor comes to mind) appointed to the bench by Obama to change all that.

So the next time your hear a liberal Democrat say “ all we want to do is regsister your firearms” what you really should be hearing is “ all we want to do is confiscate your firearms.”

read more