Elena Kagan opposes Americans' Second Amendment - Page 5

Elena Kagan opposes Americans' Second Amendment

This is a discussion on Elena Kagan opposes Americans' Second Amendment within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Kshoulder: Very interesting post, but I don't think old Tom will answer my questions, even if I stand on top of his gravestone and whisper ...

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345
Results 61 to 74 of 74

Thread: Elena Kagan opposes Americans' Second Amendment

  1. #61
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,903
    Kshoulder: Very interesting post, but I don't think old Tom will answer my questions, even if I stand on top of his gravestone and whisper them with reverence and respect.

    You hit a key point--- different meaning of the word "fear."

    But most posters here are using the modern meaning of the word fear and thus
    drawing the dichotomous "we-them" picture I was commenting on in my post.

    Anyway, I think you actually have an excellent well reasoned post here, #60,
    but that still (somewhat unfortunately) doesn't help us predict anything about what the Supremes will do with 2A. My own view is that they are not going to overturn 220 years of jurisprudence during which a wide array of restrictions on gun ownership and possession have become, "the way things are."


  2. #62
    VIP Member
    Array ksholder's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    3,992

    ksholder

    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Kshoulder: Very interesting post, but I don't think old Tom will answer my questions, even if I stand on top of his gravestone and whisper them with reverence and respect.
    Thanks. I suspect you are right about old Tom.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Anyway, I think you actually have an excellent well reasoned post here, #60,but that still (somewhat unfortunately) doesn't help us predict anything about what the Supremes will do with 2A. My own view is that they are not going to overturn 220 years of jurisprudence during which a wide array of restrictions on gun ownership and possession have become, "the way things are."
    The only reason I suspect you may be wrong is that the Supremes took the case. If they had not wanted to change the system of local restrictions, they could have let the 7th Circuit's ruling stand. Also, some of the comments made during oral arguments could give an indication of which way some of the Justices are leaning. All that having been said, you never know til they pubilsh their rulings.
    It's the Land of Opportunity, not the Land of Entitlements - Vote America!!!

    "When governments fear the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny." Thomas Jefferson

    You are only paranoid until you are right - then you are a visionary.

  3. #63
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,903

    re: ksholder

    Quote Originally Posted by ksholder View Post
    If they had not wanted to change the system of local restrictions, they could have let the 7th Circuit's ruling stand.
    Its not the system of local restrictions which I think they are going to leave in place; I don't. I agree with you there is a reason they took the case.

    What concerns me is that I do not believe they will overturn the system of FEDERAL restrictions which has been built up over 220 years.

    So, incorporation, yes. Carry in the Post Office, No. And there is just no telling where they will draw the lines on things. I think, not because I would endorse, that we will see very little practical change.

    For one thing, my impression is that of the "gun people" on the court, the segment of the population represented is the sportsman/hunter; not the self defense community.

  4. #64
    VIP Member
    Array ksholder's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    3,992
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Its not the system of local restrictions which I think they are going to leave in place; I don't. I agree with you there is a reason they took the case.

    What concerns me is that I do not believe they will overturn the system of FEDERAL restrictions which has been built up over 220 years.

    So, incorporation, yes. Carry in the Post Office, No. And there is just no telling where they will draw the lines on things. I think, not because I would endorse, that we will see very little practical change.

    For one thing, my impression is that of the "gun people" on the court, the segment of the population represented is the sportsman/hunter; not the self defense community.
    We are pretty much in agreement now that I understand where you are coming from.
    It's the Land of Opportunity, not the Land of Entitlements - Vote America!!!

    "When governments fear the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny." Thomas Jefferson

    You are only paranoid until you are right - then you are a visionary.

  5. #65
    VIP Member
    Array ksholder's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    3,992
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    What concerns me is that I do not believe they will overturn the system of FEDERAL restrictions which has been built up over 220 years.
    Hopyard - thinking further about the case at hand (McDonald), I don't see how SCOTUS could rule on the FEDERAL restrictions. These were not at isuse in the McDonald case and I don't believe they were argued. If SCOTUS were to rule on this, they would be legislating from the bench which the pro-gun justices are loathe to do. Sounds like you could bring such a case to see where it goes. I like the idea.
    It's the Land of Opportunity, not the Land of Entitlements - Vote America!!!

    "When governments fear the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny." Thomas Jefferson

    You are only paranoid until you are right - then you are a visionary.

  6. #66
    VIP Member
    Array DaveH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    SW Virginia
    Posts
    5,036

    NRA's Gag-order?

    This sounds a tad fishy -- I my experience Board Members tell the management team what to do, not the other way around and the Board Members weren't gagged on the carve-out of NRA's collaborated to get the DISCLOSE Act passed.

    But redstate.com is usually a reliable source.

    So, here it is.

    Anyone else seen anything else to confirm it?

    Anyone seen a rebuttal?

    NRA Issues Gag Order to Its Board Members on Elena Kagan | RedState

    NRA Issues Gag Order to Its Board Members on Elena Kagan
    Posted by Erick Erickson (Profile)

    Sunday, June 27th at 12:45PM EDT

    Internal Senate emails confirmed by NRA Board Members are highlighting just how far the National Rifle Association has fallen.

    The organization recently collaborated with the left to obtain a carve out of the DISCLOSE Act, legislation designed to silence bloggers and outside interest groups like tea party activists. This was a first amendment issue and the NRA gladly took a position and campaigned for its members to take a position on the DISCLOSE Act.

    One of the NRA’s chief arguments was that it needed the carve out to be effective in its advocacy of Second Amendment issues. But here’s the problem: these internal Senate emails confirmed by NRA Board Members show that the National Rifle Association’s management team has explicitly and directly told the NRA’s board they are prohibited from testifying about second amendment issues during the Elena Kagan confirmation hearings.

    That’s right: the foremost gun rights lobby in the nation is prohibiting its board from testifying in the Elena Kagan confirmation hearings about the second amendment.

    The NRA did issue a statement on Friday after the internal Senate email began leaking out informing people of the gag order. The statement noted Kagan’s problematic record on guns, but that’s just smoke and mirrors. Don’t believe them when they say they are working with Senators to investigate her record. If they were really working with Senators, they would have accepted an invitation to testify on the Kagan nomination when they were invited. The gag order on board members is not limited to providing testimony, but it prohibits board members from coming out against Kagan in their individual capacity.

    If the NRA is really working with pro-guns Senators and Kagan is really hostile to Second Amendment rights, which she is, they will score her confirmation vote and actually make the score count this time, unlike they did on the confirmation of Sonya Sotomayor. With Sotomayor, they waited until several days after RedState began demanding a score and then, in effect, announced they’d score it and ignore it.

    First they collaborated with the left to get the DISCLOSE Act through the House, now they are blocking their own from speaking out against Elena Kagan. Is this the deal the NRA cut with the left? They get a carveout and shut up their board?
    Μολὼν λαβέ

    I'm just one root in a grassroots organization. No one should assume that I speak for the VCDL.

    I am neither an attorney-at-law nor I do play one on television or on the internet. No one should assumes my opinion is legal advice.

    Veni, Vidi, Velcro

  7. #67
    VIP Member
    Array DaveH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    SW Virginia
    Posts
    5,036

    Thumbs down Kagan to Full Senate

    As expected but still

    > http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...43-503544.html <

    Committee Approves Kagan Nomination, Sends to Full Senate

    The Senate Judiciary Committee today approved Solicitor General Elena Kagan's nomination to the Supreme Court, but nearly every Republican on the committee opposed her nomination, saying her personal and political views inappropriately drive her legal views.


    Just one Republican joined the Democrats in voting in favor of Kagan's nomination: Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. The final committee vote was 13 to six. Kagan's nomination now goes before the full Senate for consideration; Graham's vote ensures that Democrats will have the 60 votes necessary to overcome a potential Republican filibuster of the nomination.


    Graham said he would clearly prefer a more conservative nominee, but that he has a constitutional obligation to honor President Obama's choice, so long as she is qualified.

    SNIP
    Time to email & call again.

    Those in Graham district remember this next election!
    Μολὼν λαβέ

    I'm just one root in a grassroots organization. No one should assume that I speak for the VCDL.

    I am neither an attorney-at-law nor I do play one on television or on the internet. No one should assumes my opinion is legal advice.

    Veni, Vidi, Velcro

  8. #68
    VIP Member
    Array DaveH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    SW Virginia
    Posts
    5,036

    My letters:

    Dear Sen. xxxx

    Now that the deliberation has moved to the full Senate, how do you plan to vote?

    Have you reviewed the reports that have become public that when the Supreme Court was asked in 1987 to decide if the D.C. gun ban was unconstitutional, she wrote to Justice Marshall that she was "not sympathetic" toward the argument that the Second Amendment didn't allow D.C. to completely ban all guns"? What are your thoughts on this position and how it reflects on her judgment?
    Go get'em!
    Μολὼν λαβέ

    I'm just one root in a grassroots organization. No one should assume that I speak for the VCDL.

    I am neither an attorney-at-law nor I do play one on television or on the internet. No one should assumes my opinion is legal advice.

    Veni, Vidi, Velcro

  9. #69
    VIP Member Array Eagleks's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    7,863
    If there was ever a need for a fillabuster in the Senate.... this is it ! ! ! !
    I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts. --- Will Rogers ---
    Chief Justice John Roberts : "I don't see how you can read Heller and not take away from it the notion that the Second Amendment...was extremely important to the framers in their view of what liberty meant."

  10. #70
    VIP Member Array Sig 210's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Southwestern OK
    Posts
    2,017
    Those in Graham district remember this next election!
    His district is the entire state of SC. Graham will come home near election time and tell his constituents that he is a "family values" man who loves motherhood, apple fritters and all kinds of good stuff. Graham will tell his constituents that those awful Democrats will vote to confirm liberal judges to federal courts. Graham will be re-elected.

  11. #71
    VIP Member Array rodc13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    San Antonio, Texas
    Posts
    2,753
    Elena Kagan, who will be our newest Supreme Court Justice, has declared her respect for precedent (specifically Heller) as the law of the land. This is important, not only for protection of Second Amendment rights, but also for preservation of other principles confirmed by previous court decisions. Overturning long-standing precedents is what constitutes the so-called judicial "activism" which everyone purports to eschew.

    Since the "conservatives" on the court have ducked the opportunities to provide a more definitive 2A interpretation, continued cases will still be necessary to overcome remaining restrictive laws imposed by states and municipalities.

  12. #72
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    27,831
    Whatever else is true, each of these rickety 5:4 decisions can easily become 4:5 the other way if this new robe doesn't get with the program and come clean with respect to what "shall not be infringed" means. Simple as that.

    Having "respect" for some recent decisions as being "the law of the land" is no more than agreeing the rulings are legal. Sure as sunshine, though, the four (now five) robes can easily continue to vote to disregard the rights of American citizens and rule all of the upcoming claims as not applying for this, that or the other reason.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  13. #73
    VIP Member Array Sig 210's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Southwestern OK
    Posts
    2,017
    It should not come as a surprise that an ultra-liberal blissninny is opposed to our Second Amendment rights. It bothers me that the party that claims to have a lock on love for the Second Amendment does not see fit to filibuster Kagan's nomination. Heaven knows, they have filibustered nearly everything else.

  14. #74
    VIP Member
    Array DaveH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    SW Virginia
    Posts
    5,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Sig 210 View Post
    .... It bothers me that the party that claims to have a lock on love for the Second Amendment does not see fit to filibuster Kagan's nomination. Heaven knows, they have filibustered nearly everything else.
    See story above:

    Graham's vote ensures that Democrats will have the 60 votes necessary to overcome a potential Republican filibuster of the nomination.
    Go get Georgia!
    Μολὼν λαβέ

    I'm just one root in a grassroots organization. No one should assume that I speak for the VCDL.

    I am neither an attorney-at-law nor I do play one on television or on the internet. No one should assumes my opinion is legal advice.

    Veni, Vidi, Velcro

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

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

Similar Threads

  1. Elena Kagan at gun range???
    By DaveH in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: October 25th, 2010, 09:34 PM
  2. Halloran Opposes Proposed Rule Amendment Regarding Gun Licenses
    By mrreynolds in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: September 26th, 2010, 03:59 PM
  3. Fight Elena Kagan nomination at SCOTUS
    By jfl in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: July 1st, 2010, 11:38 PM
  4. NRA Issues Gag Order to Its Board Members on Anti-Gun Elena Kagan Hearings
    By Sgt Z Squad in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: June 30th, 2010, 09:53 PM
  5. Second Amendment Protects All Americans, Supreme Court Told
    By JonInNY in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: November 18th, 2009, 11:01 AM

Search tags for this page

elena kagan opposing american second amendment

Click on a term to search for related topics.