Is the NRA Executive Director Waffling on Gun Rights & Judge Sotomayor?
by Bill Smith, ARRA Editor: The Washington Times posted an article today titled"NRA raises concerns over Sotomayor." NRA Executive Director Chris W. Cox wrote in a letter to U.S. Senators, "The cases in which Judge Sotomayor has participated have been dismissive of the Second Amendment and have troubling implications for future cases that are certain to come before the Court. Therefore, we believe that America's 80 million gun owners have good reason to worry about her views."
While at first glance it appears that the NRA is going to oppose the confirmation of Sotomayor, NRA members and american gun owners had better not get their hopes up that the NRA is best supporting them in this situation. For The Times' article leads off with the statement, "The National Rifle Association said Tuesday that it would actively oppose Supreme Court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor's confirmation if she is hostile to senators who press her about gun rights." What kind of wimpy statement is that?
If The Washington Times article is incorrect, then NRA Director Cox needs to be all over The Times for a retraction. Also, the NRA needs to clarify that they are opposing the confirmation of Sotomayor. After all. who cares if she is hostile to the senators asking questions. Many of us would be hostile to today's senators asking us questions. What matters is that Sotomayor may be hostile to or at minimum dismissive of citizen's gun rights by holding that 2nd Amendment rights are only valid against Federal jurisdiction but are not valid rights protected within jurisdictions of the States. What's next, restriction of 1st Amendment free speech? All States upon admission as a State to the USA were required to ratify that they support the U.S. Constitution. Has the Supreme Court ruled that this ratification has no merit? If it has no merits, why should any State have to follow any amendment or requirement in the U.S. Constitution or for that matter, any of the laws passed by the Federal Government?
However, if today's Washington Times report is correct, then America's 80 million gun owners are not being represented by the NRA and the NRA members are wasting their time with Chris Cox as NRA Executive Director. Silence or a wait to see "how Sotomayor treats the senators" are not options for the executive director of the NRA. Again, if the Times was in error, Director Cox your immediate attention and action are needed to remediate this situation on behalf of 80 million gun owners! Please, let us know what you have done to correct this situation with The Times and what you have done to send a clear message to the US Senate that the NRA is opposing the confirmation of Judge Sotomayor.
Tags: 2nd Amendment, ARRA News Service, Bill Smith, Chris W. Cox, gun rights, Judge Sonia Sotomayor, nominations, NRA, US Supreme Court To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
While at first glance it appears that the NRA is going to oppose the confirmation of Sotomayor, NRA members and american gun owners had better not get their hopes up that the NRA is best supporting them in this situation. For The Times' article leads off with the statement, "The National Rifle Association said Tuesday that it would actively oppose Supreme Court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor's confirmation if she is hostile to senators who press her about gun rights." What kind of wimpy statement is that?
If The Washington Times article is incorrect, then NRA Director Cox needs to be all over The Times for a retraction. Also, the NRA needs to clarify that they are opposing the confirmation of Sotomayor. After all. who cares if she is hostile to the senators asking questions. Many of us would be hostile to today's senators asking us questions. What matters is that Sotomayor may be hostile to or at minimum dismissive of citizen's gun rights by holding that 2nd Amendment rights are only valid against Federal jurisdiction but are not valid rights protected within jurisdictions of the States. What's next, restriction of 1st Amendment free speech? All States upon admission as a State to the USA were required to ratify that they support the U.S. Constitution. Has the Supreme Court ruled that this ratification has no merit? If it has no merits, why should any State have to follow any amendment or requirement in the U.S. Constitution or for that matter, any of the laws passed by the Federal Government?
However, if today's Washington Times report is correct, then America's 80 million gun owners are not being represented by the NRA and the NRA members are wasting their time with Chris Cox as NRA Executive Director. Silence or a wait to see "how Sotomayor treats the senators" are not options for the executive director of the NRA. Again, if the Times was in error, Director Cox your immediate attention and action are needed to remediate this situation on behalf of 80 million gun owners! Please, let us know what you have done to correct this situation with The Times and what you have done to send a clear message to the US Senate that the NRA is opposing the confirmation of Judge Sotomayor.
Tags: 2nd Amendment, ARRA News Service, Bill Smith, Chris W. Cox, gun rights, Judge Sonia Sotomayor, nominations, NRA, US Supreme Court To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Posted by Bill Smith at 4:01 PM - Post Link
1 Comments:
its time to make Ted Nugent head of the NRA!!!
Post a Comment
<< Home