Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

GOA is stepping up its ;ast minute efforts to stop Kagan form being confirmed for the SCOTUS,, You can use the link they provide to their +Take Action Center and get a Pre Written message sent to Warner and Webb,

We Are Still A Few Votes Short Of Killing The Kagan Nomination
-- Time to redouble our efforts

Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://gunowners.org


Tuesday, July 13, 2010


The hearings on Elena Kagan to be a justice on the U.S. Supreme Court are over.

Senate Democrats slammed them through quickly, in the same way they did ObamaCare. And, like ObamaCare, they made sure that Senate Republicans would not have the material they needed to review Kagan's record -- withholding, for example, large amounts of Clinton administration legal advice on a claim of executive privilege.

(If you missed GOA's testimony at the Kagan hearings, you can view it here: http://gunowners.org/kagantestimony .)

While much has been concealed, what we do know about Kagan is not good, as her public service has clearly shown antagonism to the Constitution and the Separation of Powers.

For example, when it became clear that the Supreme Court might strike down parts of the Brady Act (which it eventually did in 1997), Kagan suggested that President Clinton "by executive order, [might] prohibit a FFL from selling a handgun" without a certification from local police.

In other words, Kagan believed that the President could circumvent the role of Congress and to act unilaterally, without any legal authority, to impose restrictions upon the private ownership of handguns.

Not only that, Kagan drafted a memo for President Clinton suggesting a whole list of guns that could be banned by executive fiat. The Los Angeles Times reported on May 27, 2010, that: "At the time of the [1997] import ban, Jose Cerda, who worked in the domestic policy shop run by Kagan and her boss, Bruce Reed, said, 'We are taking the law and bending it as far as it can to capture a whole new class of guns.'"

Combine all of this with the fact that in 1987 Elena Kagan told her boss, Justice Thurgood Marshall, that she was "not sympathetic" to the plight of an African-American man who wanted to own a gun for self-protection because he carried large sums of cash when depositing money for the laundromat where he worked in Washington, D.C.

Elena Kagan will follow philosophically in the footsteps of Sonia Sotomayor. During her confirmation hearings, Americans were promised that Sotomayor believed the Heller case in 2008 established "that the Second Amendment right is an individual right." But in the recent McDonald case, Sotomayor joined the minority in wanting to both overturn Heller and deny that the Second Amendment protects a "fundamental" right.

So, Justice Sonia Sotomayor lied her way onto the bench. And "cagey Kagan" is doing exactly the same thing. Please make sure you take action!

ACTION: The Senate Judiciary Committee will probably be voting on the Elena Kagan nomination next week -- which means the proverbial ball is now rolling. So contact your Senators and urge them to oppose Kagan for the U.S. Supreme Court. And please urge your family and friends to do the same.

You can use the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at http://gunowners.org/activism.htm to send a pre-written message to your Senators.


----- Pre-written letter to Senators -----

Dear Senator:

You will be asked soon to vote up or down on Elena Kagan for the U.S. Supreme Court. After reviewing just some of the evidence against her, I think the case is clear that... a vote for Kagan is an anti-gun vote.

Kagan's public service record has clearly shown antagonism to the Constitution and the Separation of Powers. Emails taken from the Clinton Library clearly bear this out.

For example, when it became clear that the Supreme Court might strike down parts of the Brady Act (which it eventually did in 1997), Kagan suggested that President Clinton "by executive order, [might] prohibit a FFL from selling a handgun" without a certification from local police.

In other words, Kagan believed that the President could circumvent the role of Congress and to act unilaterally, without any legal authority, to impose restrictions upon the private ownership of handguns.

Not only that, Kagan drafted a memo for President Clinton suggesting a whole list of guns that could be banned by executive fiat. The Los Angeles Times reported on May 27, 2010, that: "At the time of the [1997] import ban, Jose Cerda, who worked in the domestic policy shop run by Kagan and her boss, Bruce Reed, said, 'We are taking the law and bending it as far as it can to capture a whole new class of guns.'"

Combine all of this with the fact that in 1987 Elena Kagan told her boss, Justice Thurgood Marshall, that she was "not sympathetic" to the plight of an African-American man who wanted to own a gun for self-protection because he carried large sums of cash when depositing money for the laundromat where he worked in Washington, D.C.

Elena Kagan will follow philosophically in the footsteps of Sonia Sotomayor. During her confirmation hearings, Americans were promised that Sotomayor believed the Heller case in 2008 established "that the Second Amendment right is an individual right." But in the recent McDonald case, Sotomayor joined the minority in wanting to both overturn Heller and deny that the Second Amendment protects a "fundamental" right.

So, Justice Sonia Sotomayor lied her way onto the bench. And "cagey Kagan" is doing exactly the same thing.

I am sure you have seen the recent polls -- fewer than four in ten Americans want to see Kagan confirmed to the Court. I hope you will follow the will of the American people on this one, and not blindly follow the President who, himself, is at near record lows in the polls.

Sincerely,

Spence, that letter is way too long and no staffer or senator will read it.

You can simplify it greatly by saying:

Dear Senator,

A confirmation vote from you for Kagan will result in a negative vote from me and many others the next time your job comes up for renewal. Confirm her at your own risk.

Sincerely,
A Citizen

VBshooter wrote:Elena Kagan will follow philosophically in the footsteps of Sonia Sotomayor. During her confirmation hearings, Americans were promised that Sotomayor believed the Heller case in 2008 established "that the Second Amendment right is an individual right." But in the recent McDonald case, Sotomayor joined the minority in wanting to both overturn Heller and deny that the Second Amendment protects a "fundamental" right.

So, Justice Sonia Sotomayor lied her way onto the bench. And "cagey Kagan" is doing exactly the same thing. Please make sure you take action!

If the GOP takes back the house, I hope they begin impeachment proceedings against Sotomayor for perjury. She obviously lied during her Senate confirmation hearings, and she was under oath. Wishful thinking, but it would be great if they did that.

I fully agree,, Judges can be taken down from the bench,,, It takes some doing but can be done.. She is representative of the whole administration and its lying ways... knowing that we are all painfully aware of the job ahead of us in November of this year and 2012. Also to inform those supported that they had better perform correctly or they to are out on their ass next cycle. DK I didn't write that , it was GOA's letter, I agree it should have been much shorter. More like ...Don't support Kagan ,.. She sucks wind!!

VBshooter wrote:I fully agree,, Judges can be taken down from the bench,,, It takes some doing but can be done..

The Constitution is amended more often than judges are impeached - and only once has a Supreme Court justice been impeached (he wasn't convicted).

I didn't say it would be easy.. If it was they'd be flying off the bench every election. Sotomayer is a good recent example of one that should be removed. The other 3 who feel we don;t have the basic rights the Constitution allows should be booted right behind her.

Diomed wrote:

VBshooter wrote:I fully agree,, Judges can be taken down from the bench,,, It takes some doing but can be done..

The Constitution is amended more often than judges are impeached - and only once has a Supreme Court justice been impeached (he wasn't convicted).

So what would that new Constitutional amendment say? Maybe words like "shall not infringe" and "this time we really mean it."?

@Spence - I realize that, just trying to make a point. They dont read anything anyway. I doubt even the staffers read them.

Sadly I agree DK,, I think we have all seen enough form letters and witnessed the bad votes to know that both of our Senators are following the party line and don't have an independent thought between them. Staffers are just that, staffers ,and It would not surprise me if they just look at the subject line and send out the appropiate form. Too bad we're stuck with these two Obama cheerleaders for a couple of years yet.

This just in:

Dear Mr. Bates,

Thank you for contacting me regarding the nomination of Elena Kagan to serve on the United States Supreme Court.

On May 10, 2010, President Obama nominated Elena Kagan, who currently serves as Solicitor General of the United States, to fill the U.S. Supreme Court seat being vacated by Justice John Paul Stevens. I believe the President has made a solid choice in nominating Ms. Kagan for the Supreme Court. I first met her when she served as the Dean of Harvard Law School. She is very highly regarded across the ideological spectrum for her impressive background in government service and her strong academic and legal credentials.

Elena Kagan's nomination was referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee where a hearing was held the week of June 28-July 1. The Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to vote on the nomination on Tuesday, July 20, 2010. I am not a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. However, should the Committee favorably report the nomination, I look forward to being a part of the deliberation in the full Senate as we exercise our responsibility to provide advice and consent to the President.

Again, thank you for contacting me. Please be assured that I value the thoughts that you have shared with me on this nomination. As we move forward in the 111th Congress, please continue to be in touch with your opinions and concerns.


Sincerely,
MARK R. WARNER
United States Senator


Canned? I dunno - I fell a little bit more of a personal touch here.

I emailed them. I dislike the automated email response. They could have just posted that on their website. I have heard them say they will take my opinion and that of the rest of the state into consideration. If the senators really took our vote into consideration, then maybe they should give us a tally of the emails and phone calls they receive.

Reading the last portion of the first paragraph says it all ,, He falls all over himself praising the gun hater and liberal weenie, He did the same thing with Sotomayer . IMHO he;s gonna vote Yes ! It doesn;t matter what we as gun owners or citizens want , It;s not the Obama way , thats all that seems to matter to him,,,and I think ol numnuts Warner has presidential ambitions down the road too! So he;s hooking his wagon to what he thinks is good vehicle to lead him there,

This - being able send our letters to these pukes - is a fine example of us being able to exercise our rights...1st Amendment...right to redress grievances...

The distinction is this is our right. We can choose to exercise it or not. For the elected, they have no choice. They are bound by oath to uphold the Constitution. Let us not forget that the Constitution is the rule book for the government and the law they must follow - NOT US. We are supposed to be the benefactors and recipients of the rights and privileges therein.

This is a serious issue, and IMO one of the most serious. We the people have no viable way to remove those from office when they violate the Constitution or their oath.

Yes, you can say we can vote them out or recall, but as we see that is not effective. While we wait for an election or try to get them recalled (if the state allows) they continue to perform injustices and build their power at our expense.