Harry Mitchell NO Credibility on SCOTUS 2nd Amendment Ruling

Politicker AZ posted a brief mention of Congressman Harry Mitchell’s response to today’s US Supreme Court ruling on the Washington, DC gun ban. Mitchell was quoted as saying, “This is an important ruling for those who believe in personal freedoms and understand that the D.C. ban when beyond constitutional limits.”

Excuse me!?!?! Harry Mitchell wouldn’t know a gun right if he shot himself in the foot.

In 2003, while serving in the State Senate, Harry Mitchell voted against House Bill 2319. This bill ultimately passed (no thanks to Harry) and became law. (And without Governor Napolitano’s signature)

According to the Senate Fact Sheet, the legislation, “Prohibits political subdivisions of the state from regulating the transfer of firearms or ammunition as well as the sale or transfer of firearms on property it owns, leases or operates in a manner inconsistent with state law.” (Look familiar?)

Here was the vote detail during the Senate’s 3rd Read. Harry Mitchell voted AGAINST it.

So Congressman Harry, although you had something to say about today’s 2nd Amendment ruling, you really have no credibility on the issue of protecting the 2nd Amendment given your opposition to it.


Comments

  1. Ken Jacobs says

    The transfer or sale of firearms or ammunition was not covered by today’s SCOTUS ruling. So, no, it doesn’t look familiar. You are mixing apples and oranges. The irony is your post is presumably about credibility.

  2. Sonoran Sam says

    If he condemned the ruling you’d be all over him.

    So he praises it…and you’re still crawling over him.

    Doesn’t do much for your credibility.

  3. Avid Reader says

    Scalia makes it quite clear that today’s Court ruling allows for political divisions of the state and the state itself to regulate the transfer and sale of guns.

    Scalia clearly states in today’s opinion, “Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

    Maybe you should read the Court’s opinion before you decide to act like a total tool.

  4. Frank Soto says

    Yes, or at least read the summaries at SCOTUSblog.com or Volokh.com, so it can at least appear like you read the opinion.

  5. I believe you missed the point. How could Mitchell approve of a court decision that came down to the right of legislation which he opposed during his state legislative days?

Leave a Reply