NRA exposes Media Lies intended to promote Gun Control
Jan, 2009
STRONGEST GUN CONTROLS EVER IN THE USA: Obama to Seek New Controls on Guns In Addition to Assault Weapons Ban.
The Obama administration will seek to reinstate the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004 during the Bush administration and add additional gun controls as Holder argues a different interpretation of Washington, D.C. v. Heller than previous administrations.
As President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons, Holder told reporters.
During his confirmation hearing, Holder told the Senate Judiciary Committee about other gun control measures the Obama administration may consider.
WERE LOOKING at the STRONGEST GUN CONTROLS EVER in the USA
Obama and Attorney General Holder want a different interpretation of the Supreme Court ruling Washington, D.C. v. Heller to intact tougher gun control laws.
http://www.butasforme.com/tag/wayne-l...
In a brief interview with ABC News, Wayne LaPierre, president of the National Rifle Association, said, I think there are a lot of Democrats on Capitol Hill cringing at Eric Holders comments right now.
Holder also suggested criminalizing certain aspects of gun shows as we know them today:
I think closing the gun show loophole, the banning of cop-killer bullets and I also think that making the assault weapons ban permanent, would be something that would be permitted under Heller, Holder said, referring to the Supreme Court ruling in Washington, D.C. v. Heller, which asserted the Second Amendment as an individuals right to own a weapon.
The Assault Weapons Ban signed into law by President Clinton in 1994 banned 19 types of semi-automatic military-style guns and ammunition clips with more than 10 rounds.
NRA SLAMS OBAMAS NEW INTERPRETATION of WASHINGTON D.C. v. HELLER
A semi-automatic is a quintessential self-defense firearm owned by American citizens in this country, LaPierre said. I think it is clearly covered under Heller and its clearly, I think, protected by the Constitution.
Wayne LaPierre is the Executive Vice President and Chief Executive Officer of the National Rifle Association of America. In his leadership position, Mr. LaPierre conducts the affairs of an over 3.5 million member association through a staff of over 550 employees with an annual budget of over $120 million.
Under the direction of a 76 member board of directors, he is responsible for implementing NRA policy as well as serving as president of the National Firearms Museum Fund and trustee of the NRA Foundation. An avid sport shooter, he holds an executive position with the North American Wetlands Conservation Council, the world's largest wildlife program, and officiates each year at NRA events nationwide.
Mr. LaPierre joined the staff in 1978, as a state liaison in the NRA Institute for Legislative Action, the lobbying arm of the Association. Initially responsible for a 10-state region, he was promoted twice in two years and named the Director of State & Local Affairs in 1979. The next year he accepted a position as the Director of Federal Affairs, where he was responsible for the planning and execution of all NRA initiatives before Congress and the executive branch.
Wayne LaPierre serves on the board of directors of the American Association of Political Consultants. He holds a master's degree in American government and politics from Boston College and a bachelor's degree in education and political science from Siena College in New York.
After accepting his current position in 1991, Mr. LaPierre became the chief national spokesperson for the National Rifle Association which, under his leadership, has achieved the most dramatic growth in membership since NRA was founded in 1871.
http://www.nramemberscouncils.com/way..._______________________________________________________________________
By NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre,
and NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris W. Cox
July 16, 2009
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 19th 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 our loved ones and ourselves 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.
_______________________________________________________________________
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 19th 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 our loved ones and ourselves 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.
_______________________________________________________________________
No comments:
Post a Comment