There may be no vote a United States Senator casts that is more important than a vote to confirm a nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court. Now that the Court has clearly stated that the Second Amendment is a fundamental, individual right that applies to all law-abiding Americans, NRA members and gun owners expect a nominee to the Court to fully support, defend and preserve that freedom.

We have carefully examined the career, written documents and public statements of nominee Elena Kagan and have found nothing to indicate any support for the Second Amendment. On the contrary, the facts reveal a nominee who opposes Second Amendment rights and is clearly out of step with mainstream Americans.

Therefore, the NRA is strongly opposed to Kagan’s confirmation to the Court.

In testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, she refused to declare support for the Second Amendment, saying only that the matter was “settled law.”

This was eerily similar to the scripted testimony of Justice Sonia Sotomayor last year, prior to her confirmation to the Court. When pressed on the Second Amendment then, Sotomayor also referred to the issue as “settled law.”

But in the recently decided case of McDonald v. City of Chicago, Sotomayor ignored the “settled law” of the Heller decision and signed a dissenting opinion that declared, “I can find nothing in the Second Amendment’s text, history, or underlying rationale that could warrant characterizing it as ‘fundamental’ insofar as it seeks to protect the keeping and bearing of arms for private self-defense purposes.”

It has become obvious that “settled law” is the scripted code of an anti-gun nominee’s confirmation effort. The NRA is not fooled. No member of the U.S. Senate should be either.

With no judicial record, only Kagan’s political career can be reviewed. And this provides no reason to trust her with Americans’ firearms freedom. Throughout her career, she has repeatedly demonstrated a clear hostility to the fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms under the U.S. Constitution.

As a clerk for Justice Thurgood Marshall, Kagan said she was “not sympathetic” to a challenge to Washington, DC’s ban on firearms. As a domestic policy advisor in the Clinton White House, a colleague described her as “immersed” in Clinton’s aggressive assaults on the Second Amendment. She was involved in Clinton’s scheme to ban more than 50 types of commonly-owned semiautomatic firearms – an effort described as “…taking the law and bending it as far as we can to capture a whole new class of guns.”

As U.S. Solicitor General, Kagan chose not to file a brief last year in the landmark McDonald case, thus taking the position that incorporating the Second Amendment and applying it to the states was of no interest to the Obama Administration or the federal government.

These are not the positions of a person who supports the Second Amendment and, in fact, represent a clear and present danger to the right to keep and bear arms.

Kagan’s record clearly reveals that she does not believe that the Second Amendment guarantees a fundamental right. In her recent testimony, she refused to acknowledge respect for the God-given right of self-defense.

She should not serve on any court, let alone be confirmed to a lifetime seat on the highest court in the land.

The NRA is strongly opposed to the confirmation of Elena Kagan to the U.S. Supreme Court. This vote matters and will be a part of future candidate evaluations.

The above statement was originally published by NRA-ILA.

You can contact Senator Arlen Specter at 202-224-4254 and Senator Bob Casey at 202-224-6324.

First, of our endorsed incumbents, gun owners should congratulate State Reps. Paul Clymer and Gene DiGirolamo and Attorney General Tom Corbett. Tom Corbett’s re-election is particularly noteworthy to concealed carry license holders in the our district given the control over license reciprocity for the state’s gun owners. His opponent was F-rated and could have done significant damage to our progress on the issue. (Both opponents of the endorsed state representatives refused to return questionnaires.)

However, our non-incumbent endorsed candidates did not fare as well. Both happened to be Republican, and it was not a year where the stars were lined up for Republicans at the federal level. Tom Manion was defeated by anti-gun Patrick Murphy and John McCain was defeated by the most anti-gun presidential candidate in our history. We will spend the next two years informing gun owners of Patrick Murphy’s terrible record on our issue.

In at least one race with no endorsement, we seem to have improved our representation in Harrisburg for the residents of 142. Frank Farry, who forgot to return the questionnaire to NRA but sent a personal statement to NRA members that included a pledge to create a sportsmen’s council to advise him on our issues, defeated incumbent Chris King. King’s grade had dropped from an A- to a C- during his term. (Gun owners who may have contacted King over his short term in the PA House may recognize his treatment of constituents on display last night – he refused to attend his own watch party and thank his supporters or congratulate Frank Farry.)

The only other district to change hands was 31, and that was due to the retirement of an endorsed candidate. Unfortunately, for those residents, neither Pete Stainthorpe nor Steve Santarsiero returned questionnaires earning an endorsement. In fact, Stainthorpe did not return it at all. The eventual winner, Santarsiero, was given a B rating. Now it’s up to gun owners to let him know that they would like to see that grade go higher through his votes.

Our next election in 2010 will not only give us another opportunity to return the 8th District back into a pro-gun Congressional seat, but we will also be looking at a race for the Governor’s Mansion, as well as state Senate seats in the area, and all of the state House seats again. For the next two years, my focus will be on outreach and education. In speaking with many gun owners from Quakertown to Philadelphia, I found that many simply did not realize how lower ticket candidates had voted on their rights. Next time, we will educate even more gun owners for even higher turnout.

In the meantime, check back here for reports on how our local representatives are involved in all of the big gun news from the DC Beltway back to Harrisburg.

It’s important to remember that when you listen to this clip that Obama told Pennsylvania gun owners that he simply doesn’t have the votes in Congress yet to go after their guns. However, with the risk of a filibuster-proof Congress on the way, that may not stay the case should Barack Obama win.

Click here to view the embedded video.

In the rest of the interview, he spends quite a bit of time calling for another ban on semi-automatic rifles, many of which are used at regular competitions throughout Bucks County.

He also says that the only issue he has with rationing guns to law abiding purchasers is that it’s “difficult to legislate at the federal level.” However, he does encourage states to pass laws limiting the number of guns that lawful gun owners can buy.

Claiming the ads misrepresent his new, reformed views on the Second Amendment that he seems to have suddenly adopted now that he’s on the national campaign trail, his lawyers are trying to bully broadcasters into turning away NRA ads that show what Obama has said about gun owners over the course of the last 20 years. However, all of the sources his lawyers rely on to defend his threats have been widely debunked.

Gutting the Second Amendment was clearly not enough for Senator Obama’s campaign, it looks like we may now be forced to defend the First Amendment as well if he is elected next month.

“NRA will not allow Barack Obama to revise history. That is why we will be sending this fact sheet of Obama votes to wherever hunters and gun owners congregate and to 4 million NRA members to share with their friends and neighbors.” said Chris W. Cox, NRA’s chief lobbyist. “He has supported bans on handguns and semi-automatic firearms, and he has voted to ban possession of many shotguns and rifles commonly used by hunters and sportsmen across America. And we will remind voters every single time he lies.”

In 2003 while serving in the Illinois State Legislature, Obama voted in favor of a bill in the Judiciary Committee that would have made it illegal to “knowingly manufacture, deliver or possess” a so-called “semi-automatic assault weapons.” Under this bill, a firearm did not actually have to be semi-automatic to be banned. According to definitions in the bill, all single-shot and double-barreled shotguns 28-gauge or larger, and many semi-automatic shotguns of the same size, would be banned as “assault weapons.” This definition would have banned a large percentage of the shotguns used for hunting, target shooting and self-defense in the United States. The bill also would have banned hundreds of models of rifles and handguns.

Any Illinois resident who possessed one of these commonly used guns 90 days after the effective date would have had to “destroy the weapon or device, render it permanently inoperable, relinquish it to a law enforcement agency, or remove it from the state.” Anyone who still possessed a banned gun would have been subject to a felony sentence.

“Obama may argue the bill was poorly drafted,” said Cox. “But Barack Obama – who brags about being a constitutional law professor and the former president of the Harvard Law Review – voted for it. That’s pathetic.”

Look for these new brochures at gun clubs and stores around Bucks County. If you don’t see one at your favorite gun shop, email 8thdistrict -at- pagunrights -dot-com and I will send copies to you for distribution.

The brochure supplements a new website dedicated to highlighting Sen. Obama’s record on the issues: GunBanObama.com.

He was challenged by a voter who asked him about his gun record. Here is the statement by NRA-ILA about the matter:

The latest example came at an event in the swing state of Pennsylvania. WSJ.com, reports that during a small political event at a glass factory in Duryea, Pa., Obama was asked about whether he’d ban guns if he were elected president. Predictably, he reverted to his standard, non-committal, “I don’t want to take your guns” rhetoric. “If you’ve got a gun in your house, I’m not taking it,” Obama said. But apparently he could see that there were those in the crowd who weren’t buying into his defense, and he frenetically pressed on … and on. That’s when he revealed what he really thinks.

“Even if I want to take them away, I don’t have the votes in Congress,” he said. “This can’t be the reason not to vote for me. Can everyone hear me in the back? I see a couple of sportsmen back there.”

The next question Pennsylvania voters should ask is, “What happens when you do have the votes?”

1. During the Democratic YouTube debate, Joe Biden claimed a gun owner was not “mentally stable” simply because he asked the candidates about their views on gun rights. He followed with a statement that he was proud to have authored gun ban legislation, a lesson he apparently didn’t learn after his party’s losses in 1994 due to support of a wide-reaching rifle ban.
   
2. Joe Biden maintains an F-rating from the NRA – one of the worst among the many possible Vice Presidential nominees Obama was considering.
3. Biden earned that rating by voting to expose the lawful firearm industry to frivilous lawsuits, extend and expand the Clinton gun bans and ban on most hunting-rifle ammunition.
4. The Delaware Senator refuses to even pay lip-service to the Constitutional protection argument, refusing to sign on to the Congressional amicus brief in DC vs. Heller with 54 of his colleagues in the Senate.

Between Joe Biden’s pride in wanting to ban our sporting, hunting, and self-protection firearms and Barack Obama’s plans for change, gun owners cannot afford to stay at home this election. In November, we have the opportunity to tell him and Joe Biden where they can put their plans to erase the effective meaning of the Second Amendment.

What do a radical South Side Chicago priest who has demanded that law-abiding firearm dealers and state legislators be “snuffed out,” and Chicago’s political boss, who is “livid” and “outraged” over the Supreme Court’s recognition of the Second Amendment, have in common?

Influence over Barack Obama.

In the case of Mayor Richard S. Daley–who heads the toughest, most powerful urban political machine in the nation–his early primary endorsement of freshman U.S. Senator Obama’s bid for the Democratic nomination for the presidency requires a big political payback. And I suspect that payback will involve our gun rights if Obama takes the White House in November.

When the Supreme Court issued its historic landmark decision in June striking down the District of Columbia gun ban as violating the individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Mayor Daley issued a five-minute diatribe.

As the Chicago Tribune, which immediately demanded the repeal of the Second Amendment, put it: “In railing against the Supreme Court ruling, Daley stressed the danger of private gun ownership .”

Alluding to the urban gun-ban cabal headed by his New York colleague Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Daley sputtered, “Every mayor will be outraged over this. Why should we allow more and more guns in our homes? Could you see everyone having guns in their home?”

With the extraordinary victory for the nation’s gun owners, the Supreme Court recognized that all peaceable, law-abiding Americans should indeed have that choice.

If Daley had his way, he wouldn’t “allow” a single gun in any home. Recently, in Los Angeles, he said, “It is about time that America wakes up and says . . . we can outlaw smoking in a bar so quickly, yet you cannot outlaw guns in America.” And at another rally he screamed:

“NO GUNS IN THE HANDS OF THE PEOPLE OF AMERICA!”

Daley is a defendant in NRA’s lawsuit to throw out the Chicago gun ban, which is virtually identical to the unconstitutional D.C. ban.

Time and time again, Obama has said the Chicago ban is in line with his vision of the Second Amendment.

No matter how much Obama wraps himself in empty words about the Second Amendment, know him by the friends he keeps–like Dick Daley.

And that brings me to the radical priest, Michael Pfleger.

On May 27, 2007, with a mob of 1,000 gun-ban radicals cheering him on–blocking the entrance to Chuck’s Gun Shop and Range in Riverdale, Ill., a suburb of Chicago–Pfleger screamed a clear death threat against the owner.

“John Riggio. R-I-G-G-I-O. We’re going to find you and snuff you out . . . like a rat–we’re going to catch you and pull you out . . . whatever it takes to shut this gun store down . . . We’re gonna snuff out John Riggio . . .

“We’re gonna snuff out legislators who are against our gun laws.”

I have never encountered such hatred. Pfleger’s words were recognized as death threats by Chicago’s Cardinal George who issued a rebuke–saying, “publicly delivering a threat against anyone’s life betrays the civil order and is morally outrageous, especially if this threat came from a priest.”

Why is this radical priest so important with the coming election? Because Fr. Pfleger is a key long-time advisor to Sen. Obama, who in turn procured for Pfleger a $225,000 grant from the state and a $100,000 earmark from the federal government. Pfleger is a financial contributor to Obama’s campaigns.

In a Chicago Sun-Times article touting Obama’s faith–in which he stressed the importance of close advisors in “maintaining your moral compass”–the newspaper declared:

“Friends and advisors such as the Rev. Michael Pfleger . . . who has known Obama for the better part of 20 years, help him keep that moral compass set, he [Obama] says.”

Most Americans never heard of Michael Pfleger until videotapes surfaced of a racist rant on Obama’s behalf mocking Hillary Clinton. The performance by Fr. Pfleger was at the invitation of Obama’s Trinity United Church of Christ, made infamous by its America-hating pastor Jeremiah Wright, with his diatribes declaring, “God Bless America? No! No! No! God D— America.”

After weeks of dithering as to whether to leave Wright’s Trinity, it was only Fr. Pfleger’s Hillary-smearing rant that ultimately caused Obama to quit.

Yet Obama was silent on Pfleger’s “snuff” threats.

But then closing down law-abiding gun stores is part of Obama’s real Second Amendment vision. He has proposed a law banning federally licensed firearm dealers from operating within five miles of a school or park. Think about almost any community in America and what that would mean.

There are those who say guilt by association is unfair. To them I would say, 20 years with these men as Obama’s closest confidants and spiritual advisors cannot be discounted.

When it comes to the Second Amendment, the company Obama keeps speaks more than his own words. They would destroy the Second Amendment and so would Obama, the candidate.

For the Brady Campaign, Violence Policy Center, Dianne Feinstein, Chuck Schumer, U.N. gun-ban extremist Rebecca Peters and her globalist billionaire sugar-daddy George Soros, for New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and his horde of big-city politicians—in fact, for all those individuals and organizations who would harm or destroy our Second Amendment rights—Barack Obama’s mantra of “change” means their agenda will be harnessed to the total power of an aggressive, activist and radical federal government.

“Change” means gun owners will be under siege like never before.

Especially for NRA members who fought through the never-ending threats of the Clinton-Gore administration, the understanding of “change” must be the driving force for us to get other gun owners to the polls. This election is critically important. We cannot afford to have any friend of the Second Amendment sit it out, regardless of the reason.

We all know gun owners who are disillusioned with politics. Those influenced by talk of four years of “progressives” in power coalescing a united conservative movement must be reminded that this November, we are not just electing a president, we are electing an entire government.

With Obama’s emphasis on grassroots organizing, his administration will be a government redesigned and realigned to stay in power. It will be a government converted into a political machine. And with a so-called “progressive” majority in both houses of Congress, there will be little to stop that power shift.

When Obama talks about “change,” the gun-banners at the Violence Policy Center and the Brady Campaign know exactly what change they want—inside power. And they’ll likely get it.

Michelle Obama, in a politically charged college campaign speech in California, defined her husband’s meaning of “change”:

“Barack Obama … is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your division. That you come out of your isolation. That you move out of your comfort zones … Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as”.

As NRA members, this statement doesn’t bode well for our future. Our “lives as usual” means the daily exercise of our freedom.

And what of “cynicism”? It is the very basis of Americans’ long history of questioning government power and its abuse. It is the basis of challenging dissembling politicians. Cynicism is the key to seeing through politicians like Obama and Hillary Clinton, who falsely wrap themselves in the Second Amendment while espousing dangerous programs for civil disarmament.

And “division”? As NRA members, our “division” from the likes of Obama means we stand together and fight every day against those who would destroy the bedrock principles that have made our country the freest in the world. Divisiveness is the basis of our democratic institutions. Division based on principle is a noble thing.

“Comfort zone”? What about the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness guaranteed by the Declaration of Independence? That is the real “comfort zone” of all Americans. We are the only nation on earth built on the principle of “pursuit of happiness.” That means we do not serve government; it serves us.

The “change” Obama and his close allies—like George Soros’ Moveon.org —seek is a complete regime change driven by a radical political agenda. For the nation’s gun owners, “change” will take the form of many steps back to the bad old days of the Clinton-Gore years or the Jimmy Carter years, when bureaucrats in a dozen agencies were relentless in their schemes to press a hostile presidential agenda against gun ownership.

For gun owners, “change” could well mean an erosion of hard-fought reforms and hard-fought protections we have secured over the years. Those reforms represent battles won by gun owners led by NRA since the founding of the Institute for Legislative Action in 1975.

“Change” means removing the restrictions we secured against the Consumer Product Safety Commission from exercising a bureaucratic ban on firearms or ammunition based on phony “consumer hazard” criteria. This is something the Brady Campaign and the Violence Policy Center have vainly sought for years.

“Change” means ignoring the strictures imposed on federal gun-control enforcement by Congress, like preventing “firearms trace data” from being delivered into the hands of big-city lawyers to fuel punitive lawsuits to strangle the lawful firearms industry. This is New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s dream, and it is the “change” demanded by his gun-ban axis of urban politicians.

“Change” means an effort to erase all of the reforms of federal gun laws created when Congress enacted the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act of 1986. That law ended a reign of terror by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms that, for gun owners and civil libertarians, was the shameful hallmark of the Jimmy Carter presidency.

“Change” means that federal lawyers from multiple agencies with unlimited taxpayer funding will find “creative” ways to bring elements of the law-abiding firearm industry to court, circumventing the restrictions of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Firearms Act. As a freshman U.S. senator from Illinois, Obama voted against that law, which was designed to end punitive lawsuits claiming firearm industry liability based on totally unrelated acts of armed, violent criminals.

For those who don’t remember, in the waning days of the Bill Clinton presidency, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), along with the U.S. Department of Justice, used the threat of scores of separate lawsuits in many federal venues by city housing authorities to extort a supposedly “voluntary” gun-control agreement from firearm manufacturers. If Obama becomes president, you can bet the farm that bureaucrats will once again use these threats to obtain strictures that Congress would never enact.

In fact, among key advisors chosen by Obama to vet possible running mates is Eric Holder, who was Attorney General Janet Reno’s top deputy. Holder, as the Justice Department point man on all gun-control schemes, was among the top officials announcing the Clinton-Gore extortion agreement in 2000.

Among the many requirements of that agreement, a crucial one gave key elements of the gun-ban movement total oversight of the firearm industry and an ability to destroy it by running it out of business. None of this would ever have passed Congress as law, yet this stranglehold was achieved through the bureaucratic back door by Bill Clinton’s executive branch.

Backdoor bureaucratic gun-control schemes in the waning days of the Clinton administration also included diversion of millions of taxpayer dollars to HUD “gun buybacks” and gun destruction schemes; and development of so-called “smart gun” technologies and “ballistic fingerprinting.”

The ultimate aim of “smart gun” technology—to prevent a firearm being used by anyone but its registered owner—was spelled out in model legislation first floated in Pennsylvania, which said all handguns that did not possess “smart technology” would become contraband to be collected by police agencies.

All of this was created and pushed through the efforts of bureaucratic lawyers like Obama advisor Holder. Now the ultimate Washington insider lawyer, Holder is being touted as an Obama Supreme Court appointee. Recent headlines can put Holder’s reappearance on the political scene into sharp context. The Journal of the American Bar Association even asks: “Will Eric Holder Become the Next Attorney General?”

If gun owners don’t vote, that’s likely to happen.

Among the many press briefings Holder ran was the unveiling of the massive Clinton-Gore legislative assault on gun rights in April 1999. At the time, Clinton was pushing for a federally mandated state gun-owner license. That legislative package included a three-day waiting period for the purchase of a handgun; a purchase limit of one handgun a month; and bans on high-capacity magazines.

Thankfully, all of these hostile executive branch threats, including the “voluntary” gun control by extortion, ended abruptly when George W. Bush took office—a fact many people have forgotten. But if Obama captures the White House, the onslaught against our rights will be reopened on many old fronts that have been largely forgotten, as well as in new venues.

You can bet an Obama administration will make a major effort to bureaucratically centralize lawful sales records created under the National Instant Check System, which would be the basis of a universal gun-owner registration system sought by every anti-Second Amendment advocate, public and private. Additionally, you can bet that there will be a major push to criminalize all now-legal sales between private individuals.

“Change” means giving the Center for Disease Control power to once again treat private ownership of firearms as a “disease” treatable by gun control—a power denied by Congress thanks to NRA, but which can quickly be changed. That wacky theory—that guns are a virus to “civil society”—is the basis for Rebecca Peters’ international gun-ban activities. During the Clinton administration, the CDC created a massive propaganda arsenal for the gun-ban movement that still feeds the media. Under Obama, the same is likely to occur.

On that score, “change” also means using a host of federal government think tanks to create “studies” and white papers intended to spawn new gun-ban laws. In the U.S. Justice Department alone, an Obama regime could use the Office of Justice Programs, which includes the National Institute of Justice, the Office of Victims of Crime, the Bureau of Justice Assistance and the Bureau of Justice Statistics, to do its anti-gun bidding. During the Clinton-Gore years, these Justice Department entities produced scores of anti-gun “studies,” many still used today to prop up gun-ban groups’ propaganda.

Further, these agencies and those in other executive departments have millions of dollars in grant-making authority. That is something Obama knows a great deal about. During his tenure as an active member of the Joyce Foundation board, Obama oversaw the distribution of $18 million to gun-ban groups, including major funding for the Violence Policy Center (VPC). Reportedly, Josh Sugarmann’s book, Every Handgun is Aimed at You, which pushed for a national handgun ban, was funded by Obama’s Joyce Foundation board. Before he ran for public office, Obama was considered the prime candidate to lead that deep-pocketed anti-gun money machine.

“Change” also means using the total lobbying and propaganda power of the White House and multiple federal departments to bring back a version of the Clinton gun ban, or to move an F-Troop Congress on any number of gun-control schemes. The presidency is the nation’s most powerful bully pulpit—especially for someone much of the so-called “mainstream” media worships as “the great orator.”

Stop a minute and think about the scope of power we hold in our hands as pro-Second Amendment voters. What we do with that power when we vote in November will determine so much for the future.

The 2008 election will determine who controls:

• U.S. participation in the anti-gun United Nations;
• Appointments to the federal courts, including the critical U.S. Supreme Court;
• The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives;
• The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), which the Brady Campaign now insists should ban firearms in every place of employment in America;
• The Department of State, which could give credence and funding to the world gun-ban efforts of Rebecca Peters’ International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA). The State Department could negotiate a U.N. global gun-ban treaty that would violate American sovereignty;
• The U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management, which could force huge changes on hunters and gun owners;
• The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which today is being petitioned to ban lead bullets for hunting, even in the ubiquitous .22 rimfire;
• The Environmental Protection Agency, which could conceivably close down shooting ranges throughout the country.

Think about how regulations could be abused through an Obama-led Federal Communications Commission, Federal Election Commission, even Department of Defense, to change the culture of the Second Amendment in America.

When you talk to those who want to sit out this election and let an Obama administration roll into Washington, just pick any agency that covers any area of those people’s lives that they hold dear and point out how Obama’s idea of “change” could affect them. Remind them that we are not electing just a president and vice president—we are electing officials in the entire executive branch, which can be used either to their good, or used for their harm.