Sen. Feingold issues statement on SCOTUS gun control decision

Shortly after the U.S Supreme Court issued its decision in McDonald v. Chicago a case in which the City of Chicago’s ban on handguns was challenged, Senator Russ Feingold issued a statement in support of the Supreme Court’s decision:

“I am pleased that the Supreme Court has held that the Second Amendment applies equally to the states. Although not unexpected, the ruling is welcome confirmation that the right to bear arms is a fundamental right enjoyed by all Americans that cannot be infringed by the federal or state governments.”

Throughout his time in the U.S. Senate, Sen. Feingold has been a defender of the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms, and Sen. Feingold was one of the U.S. Senators who signed an amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) brief in McDonald v. Chicago.


Related Articles

16 thoughts on “Sen. Feingold issues statement on SCOTUS gun control decision

  1. Well if you think about it, what is a good christian nation without guns,war and mayhem?

    1. Then by that very same logic, if some one asks you if Republicans want to take away abortion rights, it’s a simple answer since Scott Brown is pro-choice, right?

      Fact is, the reason this is noteworthy is because it atypical or as Zach says, Mavericky.

      I’ve voted for Feingold in the past, but I have to admit, more and more I’m beginning to question whether his independent streak isn’t a nit more calculated than he’d have us believe. More tactical than principled. I like that he’s been willing to cross his party line at times – but has it ever mattered? has he ever done so when his vote was critical on a close issue? I respected very much his willingness to vote against the Patriot act at the time especially given how quickly it was pushed through with such little debate. But it wasn’t like it had any bearing on the outcome.

      1. Locke, while Sen. Feingold being the lone vote against the PATRIOT Act didn’t affect the bill’s passage one bit, the bill itself was popular in the aftermath of 9-11, and he took a good deal of heat for voting against it, so certainly there had to be some principle and personal conviction involved.

        1. I don’t disagree – and that one was different because it wasn’t just against his own party, it was a gamble possibly against public sentiment, so there was certainly a degree of principle. But the cynic in me wonders – would he have taken such a stand closer to the election? Three years is plenty of time to recover or walk back from an issue if necessary.

      2. The problem with your abortion analogy is that there are plenty more Dems that aren’t interesting in banning guns. That includes legislators and regular party members.
        Of course Scott Brown isn’t the only pro-choice Republican either.

        1. The problem is with your logic not mine. I don’t believe that at all & said it to be facetious. You’re one who made the case that Democrats aren’t against guns because one of them isn’t.

  2. Too bad the Maverick doesn’t feel the same way about the First Amendment (Speech), as he professes to be about the Second (Arms). Mercifully most of the teeth of McCain-Feingold was thrown out by the Supreme Court. The rest will follow soon we can hope.

  3. I hesitate to ask, but why are guns so important? When the right to bear arms was put in the Constitution it referred to a militia for the population almost was required to own guns. I myself am a gun owner, but certainly did not make it a majority part of my life. The people who run around wearing their guns at political outings are lunatics. Not interested in guns for guns sake but certainly for other reasons. When I am not hunting I keep my guns in my closet locked away and they are not part of my life. Taking one to the bar, to the neighbors or to church just really doesn’t enter into it.

    with that said I don’t think there’s any possibility of a gun removal Bill getting through Congress. Harry Reid is an avid gun owner in some of the pork that he has received for his state went to shooting arenas.

    ” In fact, the locus of Senator Reid’s big day out, the Clark County Shooting Park, is a beneficiary of the pol’s pork barrel meistering. As is Mr. Reid; two of his sons work at the landowner’s law firm.

    “Reid helped to secure land and $61 million for the 2,900-acre facility under the Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act,” The Las Vegas Sun informs. “He was joined at the ribbon-cutting ceremony Saturday by National Rifle Association of America Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre, Rep. Shelley Berkley, Rep. Dina Titus, state Sen. John Jay Lee and Clark County Commissioner Tom Collins.””

    no one will be taking anyone’s guns away some. This is a nonissue

    1. Actually Shiva, the reason it’s a non-issue, potentially is the very fact that SCOTUS made this decision and last years D.C. decision. The SCOTUS has also recently upheld First Amendment right’s regarding political donations/ speech. This is because the majority is still “originalists”. Suppose Thomas, Scalia, or Kennedy is replaced with “Nancy Pelosi-ish” type. The 5-4 decisions become 4-5. That’s why it matters. Remember the Left only want’s stare-Decisis when it’s their rules. They won’t hesitate to overturn “righty” decisions. The more strength the Originalists have the better for Liberty in America.

      I have no fear of amendending the Constitution.. but I do not accept intentional mis-reading of the original intent.

  4. I hesitate to ask, but why are guns so important? When the right to bear arms was put in the Constitution it referred to a militia for the population almost was required to own guns.

    Why is the First Amendment so important? When it was put in the Constitution, we were under the control of a king an ocean away and now we aren’t.

    I myself am a gun owner, but certainly did not make it a majority part of my life.

    The funny thing is, I am not a gun owner. I’m not all that comfortable with guns – and yet I’ll argue in support of a citizen’s right to keep and bear arms (with reasonable limitations) every time.

    1. I agree. When people start questioning why people should have rights it’s alarming to me. I personally hate guns and I don’t own one but I believe in individual rights.

  5. I am certainly advocating the taking away of arms. I do support reasonable limitations.

    As far as the lefty righty thing, that is pure conjuncture on your part.

    And if what you say is true, while I dont agree with it, proves that our SC is faulty. We have Justices both left and right making political decisions on the Constitution. Which makes me think the SC should not exist.

    IF what you say is true.

    However, if we have 5-4 or 4-5 decisions on a simple thing like gun ownership, that again proves its faulty.

    1st the right to own guns is in the constitution. The only thing left after that is the limitations. To own a cannon or not. If a community decides to ban guns within an area, should they have the right? I say yes. If a person is so gun nutty that he has to have them, then move.

    Which all strays from my question why is gun ownership so important when 75% of all murders are committed in the home, in friends homes or by friends or relatives?

  6. I haven’t checked in years but the last time I did I agreed with Senator Feingold on almost every single issue. While as some brought up you can never know how much is politics and how much is sincere with any politician, the fact is I am very proud to have him as my senator and I hope he wins re-election again.

  7. Yikes, the above post should have read I am NOT advocating taking away weapons or the right to own them.

Comments are closed.