After attempts of legal extortion of the firearms industry were repudiated by a bipartisan vote in Congress, Halligan’s office did not let up on attacking gun rights
Obama respects the Second Amendment like Stalin respected Poland. And if you doubt that... well... take a look at his Court of Appeals nominee.
As New York’s Solicitor General, Halligan was one of the chief lawyers responsible for New York’s baseless and politically motivated efforts to bankrupt gun manufacturers using frivolous litigation.
Halligan’s public hatred for firearms was only matched by her zealotry inside the courtroom. In a speech on May 5, 2003, Halligan called for “handgun manufacturers [to be held] liable for criminal acts committed with handguns.”
Certainly, no other manufacturer of another item -- whether it be cars, baseball bats, or anything else -- would be held liable for the criminal misuse of its product. And, as Halligan well knows, the application of that principle to firearms would surely eliminate the manufacture of firearms in America.
After attempts of legal extortion of the firearms industry were repudiated by a bipartisan vote in Congress, Halligan’s office did not let up on attacking gun rights, signing a legal brief calling for New York courts to declare the federal Gun Makers’ Protection Act unconstitutional.
Halligan's nomination has been blocked so far with the exception of a dissent from Lisa Murkowski. The New York Times and every other media outlet is demanding that she be confirmed. But here's a question. Would they confirm a nominee who tried to hold newspapers accountable for copycat shootings caused by their high capacity media coverage? Or would they consider her to be a person who had participated in an unacceptable attack on the Bill of Rights and should not be allowed to be in a position where she could do even worse harm to civil rights?