Support VSSA Advertisers

Thursday, October 20, 2016

Hillary Clinton Wants Heller Reversed to Make the Second Amendment Meaningless

VSSA's sister organization, Illinois State Rifle Association (ISRA) emails a Thursday Bulletin to members.  It's similar to VSSA's eBullet.  VSSA's office receives the ISRA bulletin and Executive Director Lu Charette passed along the October 6, edition.  In that email update, the ISRA Executive Director shared that he had received a phone call from one of their members who indicated they would be voting for Hillary Clinton on November 8.  Here is his response:
On Monday the office received a call from a member who indicated they were going to vote for Hillary Clinton, misguided to say the least.   It has taken millions of dollars, an enormous amount of time, massive efforts by organizations like the ISRA, NRA and SAF as well as personal sacrifices by people like Dick Heller, Otis McDonald and others to bring the Second Amendment back to its real meaning.  If Hillary Clinton is elected President, Heller v DC, which is the cornerstone of the Second Amendment movement, will be reversed.  McDonald v City of Chicago will be overturned, as well as many other cases and will fall by the wayside and turned into the dust of history.   Moreover, there are other important cases waiting like Peruta v County of San Diego, which seeks to destroy concealed carry.  In this case, the County of San Diego insists there is no right to carry concealed in the Second Amendment and that a person must prove his or her life is in danger before being issued a permit.  The 9th Circuit upheld the County's position by a margin of 7-4.  Before you say that it's "just California", Hillary's court will make that the law of the land.
VSSA members helped pay for the victories in Heller and McDonald.  You contributed to a special appeal that allowed VSSA to be a party to the State Association amicus briefs, so you have a special stake in making sure those decision are not rendered worthless.  Gun owners need to understand that if those decisions are reversed, we won't go back to the way things were before Heller, as former NRA President David Keene reiterated during his appearance on this past Sunday's Armed American Radio (at about the 43:25 minute mark of the first hour) program and in his new book, Shall Not Be Infringed the New Assaults on Your Second AmendmentHillary Clinton wants the 2nd Amendment reinterpreted so it doesn't mean anything, which as Keene told AAR host Mark Walters, "is the moral equivalent of abolishing it."


Shootist143 said...

I believe I understand the issues surrounding the 2nd Amendment in the upcoming Presidential election. While I believe absolutely what Clinton says about what she will do, I don't believe one word of what Trump says he will do. We have often elected officials who we believed would support our 2nd Amendment rights only to have them turn on us after election, Gillabrand in NY is a perfect example.
What embarrasses and shames me is that Trump is the best we could find to bear our standard. A women supporting Trump in a focus group recently chose Hillary over Trump to hypothetically babysit her children. If she could not trust him to babysit a few children how can she trust him with our country? Would you let your attractive daughter work in his office? I'm not suggesting Clinton is a better choice, I'm saying that I am embarrassed to be associated with this narcissistic, bombastic, self-serving individual who is the best we could come up with, when there were so many better choices.

N.Gustafson said...

to shootist143
I humbly suggest you vote for the platform and the future dominoe effects of the Judges to be nominated.
Hillary, on the other hand, would give us 4–8 more years of polytheists, liberal progressives, media elites, police-haters, global statists, financially irresponsible leaders and a weak military.
Perhaps a better way for the disenchanted to approach this election is to vote AGAINST someone. I would suggest to you that voting against a candidate is a good reason to vote! "Neutrality" is not a valid option at this critical crossroads in history. The times demand that we make a stand! If not for, make your stand against:

Vote against an immoral, ungodly Democratic Party. (To those who take issue with this characterization, don't forget that they booed God at their convention in 2012.)[4]
Vote against an unelected, unaccountable, overreaching, out of control Judiciary that believes it has the right to reshape America.
Vote against the unethical, biased, lying and untrustworthy media. (We will never reclaim America until we reject their influence. They may be the single greatest obstacle to America's recovery.)
Vote against a weakened military.
Vote against a loss of national sovereignty and a one-world government.
Vote against open borders.
Vote against policies that enable radical Islamist terrorism.
Vote against the removing of our 2nd Amendment rights.
Vote against higher taxes.
Trumps children turned out pretty well in my opinion. Both candidates are seriously flawed.
We haven't had many sexually pure men in the whitehouse and Bill Clinton certainly isn't one of those. Have you seen the redbox movie Hillary's America? Do you think Alinsky and Margaret Sanger are good Mentor's? Talk about the safety of our children Sir are you truly comfortable with partial birth abortion?
I hope to stimulate re-consideration on your apparent vote for Hillary. This is your personal right and done secretly for a reason. May America's liberties remain.
A military mom, mother of four and Patriot.

Shootist143 said...

Much of what you say about voting against rather than for resonates with me and is what makes this election so important. But I am not comfortable with including god in civil government. The founders, of whom you are so fond, made the very point. Religion should be a free choice of the people. But when we allow religion to play a role in politics, very soon we will have a state religion, and then religious freedom will disappear. Also, while I understand the concern over 2nd Amendment rights which I support as an individual, not a collective right, and which I believe is inalienable because it is a natural (not god given) right to self defense. I do not believe appointing judges based on their personal beliefs supports a judiciary which the founders created. Asking a judge to state how he will rule on a particular issue before it comes before him means we will not have a free and impartial judiciary which rules according to law but a judiciary which is a tool of those in charge of the political life of the country. I do not believe that jurists should legislate, but interpret the law as written.