Biden Judge Grilled on ‘Assault Weapon’ Ban During Judiciary Hearing

2nd Amendment – R2KBA Current Events This Week

Estimated reading time: 2 minutes

During a tense exchange in the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on March 20, 2024, Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) rigorously questioned President Biden’s 7th circuit judge nominee, Nancy Maldonado, about her involvement in an assault weapon ban.

Senator Kennedy pointed out that Maldonado, while partnering at her law firm, voluntarily wrote a brief for the Brady Center.

It stated, in part, “Assault weapons may be banned because they’re extraordinarily dangerous and are not appropriate for legitimate self-defense purposes.”

Kennedy pressed for clarity on what she meant by “assault weapons.”

Maldonado, attempting to clarify her role, stated, “I did not write the brief…I was local counsel.”

SEE ALSO: Home Invasions Plummet After Florida Sheriff Says…

She further admitted, “I am not a gun expert,” acknowledging her limited knowledge in the field. Despite Kennedy’s insistence, Maldonado struggled to recall the exact definition of “assault weapons” mentioned in the ordinance.

“I don’t remember the exact definition of assault weapons in the ordinance that was at issue,” she confessed, highlighting her disconnection from the real facts about firearms and content of the brief she signed.

Senator Kennedy’s point was clear: how can she endorse a brief advocating a ban on something she doesn’t at all understand?

Kennedy then asked her point-blank, “You think you deserve to be promoted?”

Maldonado, defending her qualifications, stated, “I stand by my record.”

Indeed, Maldonado actively champions a policy of seizing firearms, despite not being able to specifically identify the types herself.

Do you think she deserves to be on the bench of the Chicago-based 7th circuit?

*** Buy and Sell on GunsAmerica! All Local Sales are FREE! ***

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  • Patrick April 9, 2024, 5:43 pm

    Maldonado is wanting to be a Judge in Chicago. Par for the course in this Liberal Scumbag city. They don’t respect the US Constitution or our Bill of Rights. They always deflect by saying they didn’t write something or they can’t remember anything. She signed it. She read it. She agreed with it. She is Anti-Gun and should not be a Judge on any bench.

  • Elmer Fudd April 6, 2024, 9:59 am

    Never accept this premises like, “Assault weapons may be banned because they’re extraordinarily dangerous and are not appropriate for legitimate self-defense purposes.” You let them shape the conversation. Defining an Assault Weapon is fine, but what does extraordinarily dangerous mean in context of about anything in reality? Where in the Constitution does it say Self-Defense is why we have a Second Amendment.

    Not a fan of Communist Tyrants.

  • Robert April 5, 2024, 8:40 pm

    She has no business being on the bench of any court with her lack of understanding what the 2nd amendment states or what a firearms definitions.

  • Daniel Mossien April 5, 2024, 6:51 pm

    Politicians are a bunch of idiots about guns! Very few know what an AR is or any other guns. 80% of them talk about clips and extended clips. Maybe they are referring to an M-!?

  • Frank April 5, 2024, 4:25 pm

    If she doesn’t know about weapons she doesn’t belong no we’re ( just the kitchen )

  • Dr. Ben Dover April 5, 2024, 1:19 pm

    Nancy Maldonado is a leftist woke cognitively challenged imbecilic piece of feces who should be arrested, tried, convicted and sentenced to death for treasonous activities against America and the Constitution.

  • Dana L Clough April 5, 2024, 12:16 pm

    This person should immediately be disbarred. She signed a legal statement that she admitted she knows nothing about. Her signature means the statement is hers, regardless of who actually wrote it.

  • Viet Vet April 5, 2024, 11:44 am

    Totally Democrat stupid. Not having any knowledge on an assault weapon but against it. So you can’t defend yourself if a weapon is not legitimate. The way I was trained you use whatever means necessary to defend yourself. These corrupt trolls are beyond belief.

  • C April 5, 2024, 10:38 am

    Democrats are willfully ignorant about firearms. They don’t care to differentiate between types of guns because they want to ban all guns from ownership by their enemies, the Republicans. They will always carve out exceptions for their constituents—Democrat Politicians and Criminals (or do I repeat myself?).

  • Ray Flaherty April 5, 2024, 9:35 am

    The conclusion one must draw is: She can rean and write which fits the mold of three recent members of the Supreme Court. Hardly qualifications for anything but a Justice of the Peace in a small American village .

  • Jim April 5, 2024, 9:21 am

    Of course, she does NOT deserve to be on the bench. The reason is not just not being clear on guns. The reason is that she is only clear on one thing…she is a woke Liberal. THAT is what she does know. She will never be able to tell us why, “Assault weapons may be banned because they …are not appropriate for legitimate self-defense purposes”. She doesn’t even know what that means.

    Her decisions on the appeals court will simply follow non-specific Liberal guidelines, and will change as Liberal interpretations on every issue change. She will be the typical, “The Constitution is a living, evolving document” Liberal judge. If the Dems win in November, she will eventually be on the SC.

  • Olen P Biehl April 5, 2024, 9:16 am

    No judge should be promoted to the circuit court if they have strong personal feelings regarding a specific topic. Their job is to apply the law. Their job is to NOT apply their personal feeling. Someone needs to teach judges about the scope of their position.

    • Jim April 5, 2024, 12:00 pm

      Actually, judges are generally like other people. They all have strong feelings about a topic. However, they are trusted to not let their personal feelings get in the way of facts. Most judges rule fairly, paying attention to the facts, even when it goes against their personal feelings. If they feel too strongly about something, they are expected to recuse themselves from the case.

      This lady has already announced that she is going to use the bench to her favor. In other words, she is going to legislate from the bench.

  • Bob Roadcap April 5, 2024, 8:39 am

    “For the record”…….
    Sen. John Kennedy is the greatest guy we’ve got to at least try to keep some common sense in this country which I have served Militarily and In Law Enforcement my whole life. No matter “ his age”…he’s what the Founding Fathers would want!!!!!

  • James C Nye April 5, 2024, 8:28 am

    She should not be approved since she would be able to sign documents that she DOES NOT UNDERSTAND.

  • KC Jailer April 5, 2024, 8:24 am

    Translation: I don’t know what they are, but I know I don’t like them. And I’m a lawyer who will sign a document without reading or understanding it.

  • Scott April 5, 2024, 7:59 am

    The left has a definite opinion on those things they know nothing about. They want to ban guns but don’t even know the distinction between calibers.
    This actually means that their endgame is banning all guns (except those protecting them, of course).

  • Bll hitt April 5, 2024, 7:25 am

    It is not wise to promote attys who opened their name for political purposes and not with true fact based opinions!

  • paul I'll call you what I want/1st Amendment April 5, 2024, 3:23 am

    typical left, knows everything about nothing

Send this to a friend