Posted on 03/09/2013 9:06:53 PM PST by neverdem
HELENA, Mont. (AP) -- U.S. Sen. Max Baucus has been here before.
Back during the Clinton era, the Democrat faced a choice: support an assault weapons ban urged by a president from his own party and risk angering constituents who cherish their gun rights, or buck his party. He chose the ban, and nearly lost his Senate seat.
--snip--
Other Democratic senators that Republicans are watching closely include Mark Begich of Alaska, Kay Hagan of North Carolina, Tim Johnson of South Dakota, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and Mark Pryor of Arkansas....
(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...
Well there's your problem!
Good, that gets him a B-, not an A+. The point stands; he had no Constitutional authority to vote for the AWB in the first place.
***The LAST THING the Dems and even the president wanted was the shooting,***
It has also smoked the antis out of their holes and revealed to the public their REAL AGENDA, every wish list from the last fifty years has been put on the block.
In 1968, Americans, who were mostly hunters, were blindsided by the 1968 Gun Control Act.
Today’s shooters are mostly recreational shooters, wised up, and will not go softly into that anti-gun night.
“In 1968, Americans, who were mostly hunters, were blindsided by the 1968 Gun Control Act. Today’s shooters are mostly recreational shooters, wised up, and will not go softly into that anti-gun night.”
Excellent point - people now are much more fired up and understand what happens when gun rights go away (our understanding of Stalin was almost non-existent, for example). Back in 1968, we drove without seat belts on, we paid tolls using cash, there was no practical way to track people’s movements, so they weren’t tracked (yet we still got inside terrorist organizations and destroyed them...by the way), there were no drones, the only enemy the United States had was the Soviet Union - the hippies were still high on dope and decades from taking political power.
The list goes on and on...
Have you and the ACLU filed a lawsuit against Baucus in federal court?
Please explain how the NRA could give Baucus an A+ rating when he voted to confirm Sotomayor and Kagen.
I'll stick with GOA.
Have you and the ACLU filed a lawsuit against Baucus in federal court?
The NRA rates on gun issues only. Why don't you know that?
Once they get elected, it becomes Senator So-and-So, Washington, DC.
With very few exceptions, most Senators are there until they die or get appointed to a better scam office.
And the NRA, and its "ratings" are scams of the lowest order.
I thought so. You have none.
Have you and the ACLU filed a lawsuit against Baucus in federal court?
The record of a nominee for the Supreme Court is a "gun issue," in case you hadn't noticed... oh, that's right, it was GOA that brought Heller and hired Gura and not the NRA. No wonder you don't get it.
The record of a nominee for the Supreme Court is a "gun issue,"
Does the NRA rate USSC nominees?
it was GOA that brought Heller
It wasn't the Second Amendment Foundation?
Because court cases can set long-lasting legal precedent, advocacy organizations are often careful about which cases they pursue, lest they risk unfavorable rulings that harm their cause. "The typical strategy for any savvy advocacy group would be to say, 'What are the most appealing cases that we have the best chance of winning, and where do we have the best chances of winning them?'" said Carl Bogus, a constitutional law expert and professor of law at Roger Williams University.
In the wake of the Heller decision, the NRA pursued a strategy of expanding gun rights gradually. "This makes sense, because many courts are reluctant to offer broad constitutional rulings with regard to individual rights," said Richard Broughton, a professor of law at the University of Detroit and a former Justice Department prosecutor. "The NRA takes on specific issues, and they're not going for broad Second Amendment rulings. Instead, they're asking the courts to narrowly interpret gun regulations and working to win smaller victories they can build on."
Ken Klukowski, a constitutional law professor at Liberty University and former NRA staffer, agrees. "The NRA takes the long view. They are extraordinary minds for the long ball and the big picture," he said.
The NRA offered a textbook display of its methods last week, when it announced it was considering a lawsuit against the Illinois State Police over a backlog in the processing of gun permit applications.
Litigation was never the NRA's top priority, however, and it still isn't. Every year, the NRA pours tens of millions of dollars more into elections and influencing legislation at state and federal levels than it does into fighting court cases. Whereas the SAF has made a name for itself since Heller by proactively attacking gun regulations in court, the NRA has focused on preventing the passage of gun control laws in the first place.
United we stand, divided we FAIL!
So the NRA provides political cover for Democrats who then get reelected as “pro-2nd”? Disgusting.
That story was from July 2009. Votes for Sotomayor and Kagan were scored by the NRA. They did not endorse Harry Reid in 2010.
How are votes handled when the NRA scores a politician? Are the subtle nuances of a “would have voted gun control, but switched at the last minute” politician accounted for or just the final vote given?
If it is the latter, then the NRA report card is a sham and misleads.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.