Linda Feldman, Gun Control, and Obama’s “State of the Union Address”

Above: Carolyn McCarthy tries to figer out which end is up.

On January 26, 20011, Linda Feldman, from “The Christian Science Monitor,” wrote that Obama should have addressed the issue of gun control in the 2011 State of the Union Address. She contends that the expired “Assault Weapons Ban” needs to be reinstated. Along with NY Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy, (who doesn’t know the breech from the muzzle when it comes to guns and is writing a bill to ban high cap mags) I say she is a fool, who should spend some time researching what she is writing about.


Linda Feldman, either you are trying to stir the pot or you are clueless! Staff writer! Ah ha! Ha! I think your title is hilarious; only thing funnier could be “chief researcher!” Is idiocy contagious? And does CSM have a staff infection?

Do some research dunderhead! Duh! The 1994 Republican Party’s landslide election was largely attributed to Clinton’s gun ban. So let me try to grasp your thinking . . . Obama just jumped out of the fire and into the fryin’ pan during the midterm election, got burnt worse than Clinton in 1994, and now you expect him to jump back into the fire? Before he isn’t even re-elected? Yeah! I meant it just how it sounded!

As for the so called “assault weapons ban” you obviously didn’t read the specifics. The ban only applied to weapons manufactured after the date of the ban’s enactment. They didn’t, or couldn’t, nor wouldn’t go door to door and ask for everybody’s hi cap magazines. That’s a funny visual.

Go ahead; check it out on Wikipedia . . . its free even! A pistol grip, a muzzle brake, a telescoping stock, a detachable magazine, etc . . . . ; None of those things affect the operation of the weapon. All they do is make it look mean. The same damage could be done with an aesthetically pleasing lever or pump gun with a 10 round fixed tubular magazine.

P.S. Michael Bloomberg is an idiot with deep pockets! And MAIG (mayors against illegal guns), his pet project, is nothing more than an eminent front; they are a put on for political pandering! Just look at the attacks they make on “legal guns AND their OWNERS.” A gun is an inanimate object, the owner makes it illegal. So, it is the gun owner that needs to be held culpable, not the gun. Can you say “oxy-morons?”

And finally, like you, people perturb me when they don’t research both sides of the issue before running their mouths. IMHO, it makes you stupid and undeserving of the time I have spent to school you on your ignorance. That’s right! If you were dumb, you would have an excuse; but there is no excuse for ignorance! “A” is for apathy!


Sotomayor, Guns, and the NRA

While perusing the comments from a gun issue article, I stumbled upon this comment posted by John Warren on June 5, 2009 at 9:12 pm. The evidence is before the court, and it’s hard to refute the guy’s point of view. We are on the slippery slope of socialism, let’s hope we don’t see our 2nd amendment rights go the way of so many of our autonomies have since the inception of the “Bill of Rights,” and the initial logic contained in that same document, our Constitution. Between Charles Darwin’s concept of the” survival of the fittest,” and John Locke’s assertion of the “laws of nature,” there is plenty of illumination why socialism, hasn’t worked. Nature has a way of shedding it’s dead weight, or adapting and overcoming adverse circumstance. Americans cannot and will not be saddled with the burden of an unconstitutional governing body.

I got to admit, I’m not a big fan of the NRA, because I believe they’ve made concessions in the past that sold us down the river, and I believe that when they are faced with a tough decision they concede and choose the lesser of two evils. As for the whole gun regulation/ban, and infringement on the 2nd amendment . . .  I can only wonder when we are gonna start pulverizing all the rocks on earth into a fine powder, because stoning people to death is one of the oldest and traditional ways of being judged by your peers. How did David slay Goliath? If they take away the best method of protection, people are only going to resort to the second best method of protection . . . it may not be rocks immediately, but a baseball bat might be my second best choice. Who do they think they’re fooling? The idea of banning weapons is as dumb as Obama’s economic policy, and it don’t get much dumber than that!

As far as Sotomayor being a member of our supreme court . . . I think we need to base that decision on her qualifications and her positions on the issues, not on her life story, her gender, or her ethnic background. If “POTUS IGNORAMUS.” wants to impress me by making history, all he has to do is come clean about his whereabouts for the first twenty years of his life and produce a “live certificate of birth.” Anyhow from the keyboard of, to the retinas of your eyeballs, and beyond, let us take heed to what old John Warren had to say . . .

“In 2012 we must vote for Governor Mitt Romney to become our President starting on January 20, 2013, and we must vote for Governor Sarah Palin to become our Vice President on January 20, 2013 because of their superior rightwing conservative philosophy. Their superior rightwing conservative philosophy is shown in that they are pro God and Christianity, pro life, pro marriage; pro guns-second amendment, pro low taxes, pro low government spending; pro small government, pro unintrusive government, pro traditional and Judeo Christian values; pro Bible reading and prayer in our public schools, pro Christians schools and private education , pro private and free enterprise; pro military spending, anti arms agreements with Russia, pro creation; pro nuclear, pro conservative supreme court judges, pro American sovereignty; pro capitalism, anti communist, anti socialist; conservative on immigration, and pro constitution. Barack Obama and Joe Biden are of the inferior liberal and left wing ideology in that they are against every thing that Governors Mitt Romney and Sarah Palin are for and they are for every thing that Governors Mitt Romney and Sarah Palin are against.”                                          John Warren

Below is the article upon which John Warren commented

KLUKOWSKI: Gun Issue Heats Up for Sotomayor as NRA Appeals to Supreme Court

By Ken Klukowski

This week a federal appeals court held that the Second Amendment does not apply to state or city gun laws. Supporters of Judge Sonia Sotomayor incorrectly argue that this affirms her recent gun-control case. Now the NRA is petitioning the U.S. Supreme Court to take the case, and in doing so heats up the gun-rights issue to potentially become the dominant topic in Sotomayor’s confirmation hearings.

On June 2, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit handed down its decision in NRA v. Chicago. The city of Chicago has a ban on handguns almost as severe as the one invalidated by the Supreme Court last year in D.C. v. Heller. The National Rifle Association filed suit, seeking to have the Chicago gun ban struck down.

The Seventh Circuit held that the Second Amendment right to bear arms does not apply to state or city laws. All three judges on the panel hearing the case were appointed by Republican presidents. In January, Sotomayor was on a three-judge panel from the Second Circuit that similarly held that the Second Amendment affects only federal law, not state or local law. Supporters of Sotomayor are touting the Chicago ruling as proof that her Second Circuit case, Maloney v. Cuomo, was a mainstream opinion, arguing that the Seventh Circuit agrees with her.

But that’s not exactly correct. It’s true that both courts reached the same conclusion. It’s also fair to say that this is not a “pro-gun” opinion, so gun owners shouldn’t be thrilled with it. But it’s not an “anti-gun” ruling, either. The circuit court here released a nine-page analysis delving into this issue in an even-handed manner, written by one of the best-regarded appellate judges in the nation.

Originally, the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal government. Then during the 1900s, the Supreme Court began applying (or “incorporating”) most of the Bill of Rights to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. Before that time, the Supreme Court had held back in 1876, and again in 1886, that the Second Amendment does not apply to the states. But it never had an occasion to revisit the Second Amendment during the 1900s incorporation cases. It also did not need to do so last year in the Heller case because Washington, D.C. is a federal enclave, not a state, and is therefore directly controlled by the Bill of Rights.

As recently as 1997 the Supreme Court reiterated that even old precedents from the High Court bind all lower courts. The Seventh Circuit appropriately noted the Supreme Court’s instructions, and concluded that questions about whether the Second Amendment is incorporated, “are for the [Supreme Court’s] Justices rather than a court of appeals.” In other words, they recognized that after last year’s Heller case the Supreme Court appeared ready to incorporate the Second Amendment, but the Seventh Circuit considered their hands tied on the issue. They essentially have tossed the case up to the Supreme Court.

Contrast the Seventh Circuit’s opinion with Sotomayor’s Maloney case from the Second Circuit. This week the Seventh Circuit devoted nine pages to its analysis. The Ninth Circuit, which held in April that the Second Amendment is incorporated to the states, devoted 12 pages to its analysis.

Sotomayor’s Second Circuit devoted merely a single paragraph to the issue. The opinion does not even note that there has been a century of Supreme Court cases—15 cases, to be exact—incorporating various Bill of Rights provisions to the states. It simply embraced the 1886 Supreme Court case on the issue, said the Second Amendment does not apply whatsoever to the states, and then dropped the issue without further discussion.

Well-crafted judicial opinions lay out legal rules with clear reasoning to interpret the Constitution and provide guidance to other courts. The Second Circuit was the first appeals court after the Heller decision to consider whether the Second Amendment applies to the states. To routinely discard such an important question with a single paragraph is simply stunning.

Now this issue may become the single hottest issue in Sotomayor’s confirmation hearings, because one of these cases—most likely NRA v. Chicago—will almost certainly be going to the Supreme Court in the next 12 months. The NRA petitioned on Wednesday for the Supreme Court to take the case, and various groups are already lining up to support the petition.

That means that whoever sits on the Court will decide this issue that is so important to millions of American voters. This already red-hot issue now becomes white-hot, as gun owners realize that the future of their Second Amendment rights is likely to get a second look from the nation’s highest court.

Ken Klukowski is a fellow and senior legal analyst with the American Civil Rights Union.