Home>Hollywood>The View’s legal expert does a 180 on Second Amendment

The View’s legal expert does a 180 on Second Amendment

Liberal Sonny Hostin veers right on gun rights

By Joel Brizzee, June 23, 2021 8:18 pm

Screen capture of Sunny Hostin, legal analyst on ‘The View.’ (ABC)

Americans know what they are in store for when they turn on “The View” each morning. Whether they’re watching to enjoy the incessant cackling or simply prefer their “news” from the most biased source on television, ABC’s The View has become a staple in the American meta-news-media for over 20 years. Since Barbara Walters, through Rosie O’Donnell to the current Whoopi Goldberg, the stage has been set for 4 liberal women and 1 conservative woman to dish a hot take on our news cycle.

Sonny Hostin, one of the show’s most progressive panelists shocked viewers with her about-face on guns this week. The former lawyer, historically critical of 2nd Amendment rights, shocked viewers on Wednesday morning when she shared, “A lot of my friends and family members have begun to purchase guns, they’ve begun gun training and, I think, a lot of it has to do with the increase in violence against Black people.” This is in stark contrast to what she said three months ago to the day. “I don’t think we can any longer equate freedom with the unfettered right to own assault rifles.” She bolstered this opinion with an emotional plea, “I feel like a hostage to the selfish people that insist on owning these weapons.”

The problem with Hostin’s contradictory positions, a mere 89 days apart, is that both are offered without any real evidence.

On March 23rd, Hostin was commenting on the tragic shooting that occurred in Boulder, Colorado in which Ahmad Alissa, a Syrian immigrant, horrifically murdered 10 people in a grocery store, including a police officer. While the weapon Alissa used was an AR-15, Hostin knows that there are plenty of laws that regulate purchasing and possession of such weaponry. Alissa had to meet an age requirement, a background check, have a clean criminal record and undergo a holding period for the gun itself. This is hardly “unfettered”. The framing around gun purchases in this country, bolstered by people like Sonny Hostin, make it sound like an 18-year-old can walk to any store and walk out with a handgun or semi-automatic rifle within an hour… which is simply untrue. It’s also well documented that the FBI already had Alissa on a watchlist prior to his devasting rampage. Hostin, being the legal expert, knows all of this but enjoys the privilege of being a progressive in a sea of liberals. No one would have called her out back in March because she was toeing the Democratic line – Guns Bad.

Fast forward to June and Hostin sounds like she’s ready to start writing checks to the NRA. Hostin shields her new pro-gun stance from criticism by clever framing. Her entire opinion rests on the clause she conveniently inserts at the end of her statement, “…a lot of it has to do with the increase in violence against Black people.” She veils this statement with comments made by both FBI Director Christopher Wray and President Joe Biden as the backdrop. Wray stated at the January 6th hearing:

“I would certainly say, as I think I’ve said consistently in the past, that racially motivated violent extremism specifically of the sort that advocates for the superiority of the white race is a persistent evolving threat… It’s the biggest chunk of our racially motivated violent extremism cases for sure and racially motivated violent extremism is the biggest chunk of our domestic terrorism portfolio.”

Biden amplified the assessment even further: “According to the intelligence community, terrorism from white supremacy is the most lethal threat to the homeland today.” Attorney General Merrick Garland has made similar statements.

Given the apocalyptic scene painted by our government officials and news media, Hostin can now change her opinion without explanation. Suddenly … Guns Good.

So what exactly has changed for Sonny? The Democrats put out a talking point, the media packages it, and celebrities help sell it to the populace. Suddenly, guns are good for Black people because the Black community faces unprecedented danger according to unverified data from the intelligence community. This is further promoted by the Democrat in the White House, framed by TV anchor-activists like Joy Reid and Don Lemon and finally sold by Sonny herself, the quasi-media/quasi-celebrity of The View.

A year ago today, Sonny did not believe her friends and family needed to be buying guns and taking safety courses. For clarification, I asked if any of her friends or family members were specifically buying assault rifles. No answer was given after my request for comment.

America finds itself in a media environment that minimizes BLM violence, while it simultaneously paints January 6th as the worst attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor. The rules have clearly changed. Consistency is no longer relevant. The national bullhorn is controlled by one entity and its clear what ideas they want promoted.

It is bad that white people have access to assault rifles. It is good that black people buy more guns. It is unimportant that Jews and Asians in this country are facing high rates of ethnically motivated hate crimes. Speaking about Black-on-Black crime perpetuates ugly stereotypes. Affirmative action is progress. Judging people based on skin color is right.

These notions, long decried by the majority of American people are now being propagated all over the country. Hostin’s duplicity on guns merely scratches the surface of the larger cultural battles currently being waged in America. If Hollywood would dare aim for consistency—or at the very least admit when it’s changed course on a particular issue and provide substantial reasons—we’d all benefit from their honesty. But until we demand better from the people who talk down to us on television, we can count on the hosts of The View treating us like fools.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Latest posts by Joel Brizzee (see all)
Spread the news:


14 thoughts on “The View’s legal expert does a 180 on Second Amendment

  1. The whole show is filled with nuts if it weren’t for China propping up this show it would have been long gone…Let’s see what China does now.. Sonny might be waking up with a pink slip..

    Off topic did everyone catch Biden calling for a nuclear war on Americans? I’m in shock! Demand he be removed immediately.

      1. I could not sleep last night. A American president just threatened Americans. People better start paying attention this isn’t a drill…I expected to wake up with headline blaring…Nothing. 🙁 Thank you for the link Raymond! We know California was stolen also…

        1. Liz, my nightmare is that Kackala Harris would take Biden’s place. THAT would be WORSE. Better that election fraud is proven and Trump is reinstated. Still waiting to see if Kevin declares and makes a run for governor. For starters, I have a c-note waiting for his campaign. Ric Grenell is spending too much time on other things besides California; on Fox News with you-know-who Jenner.

  2. Oh, and the Boulder shooter’s surname is
    The local papers Anglicized it for whatever reason and the rest picked up on it…

  3. Trump should have fired Christopher Wray. He’s just another Fauci-like swamp creature. POTUS kept him as FBI director because AG Barr wanted him there.

  4. The increase in violence against black people is from other black people. I hope they arm up and start taking care of their neighborhoods. The democrats depend on violence, murder, and abortion to control and manipulate the black population. When will they wake up?

  5. Dear Sonny: Bear in mind JPFO, Inc. at http://www.jpfo.org. JPFO, Inc. is “America’s Aggressive Civil Rights Organization” and is non-NRA affiliated. I especially endorse their 1999 book by Richard W. Steven’s titled, “Dial 911 and Die: The Shocking Truth About The Police Protection Myth”. This can also be viewed online at You Tube. Dial 911 and Die properly teaches that, “local law enforcement has no moral or legal duty to provide police protection and armed security to individuals, but only to attempt to provide the same to the public at large” It likewise exposes the myths, fallacies, and failures of restraining orders. This is of mortal issue to many women who are being stalked, threatened, followed, and harassed by lowlife male scum! A posted caption in the introduction to Dial 911 and Die states: “Even the most advance cellular phone is no substitute (match) for a good .38 Special.” Another good book is Paxton Quigley’s 2010 revised version of her original 1989 book “Armed And Female.” The 2010 version is titled, “Armed and Female: Taking Control.” Finally another non-NRA affliated
    institution which is not only pro-Second Amendment, but likewise pro-Christian/marriage/family/ republic is The John Birch Society in Appleton, Wisconsin at http://www.jbs.org and http://www.thenewamerican.com, respectively. The Bible states: “A wise man (or woman) will increase learning, and a man (woman) of understanding will attain wise counsel.” —- Proverbs 1:5

    James A. Farmer
    Merrill, Oregon (Klamath County)
    Long Live The State of Jefferson!

  6. In light of the recent ruling (6/3/21 ) by Federal judge Roger Benitez overturning a California firearms ban on assault weapons where he ruled it violates the Constitutional right to bear arms, his words, referring to the Second Amendment, I have a suggestion. In my thesis regarding the Second Amendment I think it will prove his ruling right to bear arms” has everything to do with a “militia” and nothing to do with a “person” or individual, which the following will suggest..

    Justice Amy Coney Barrett Second Amendment dilemma

    In some 225 years neither law professors, academic scholars, teachers, students, lawyers or congressional legislators after much debate have not been able to satisfactorily explain or demonstrate the Framers intended purpose of Second Amendment of the Constitution. I had taken up that challenge allowing  Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s dilemma to understand the true intent of the Second Amendment.

    I will relate further by demonstration, the intent of the Framers, my understanding using the associated wording to explain. The Second Amendment states, “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

    Militia, a body of citizens organized for military service.

    If, as some may argue, the Second Amendment’s “militia” meaning is that every person has a right to keep and bear arms, the only way to describe ones right as a private individual is not as a “militia” but as a “person.” (The individual personality of a human being: self)

    The 4th Amendment reminds us, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons….”

    The Article of Confederation lists eleven (11) references to“person/s.” The Constitution lists “person” or “persons” 49 times to explicitly describe, clarify and mandate a constitutional legal standing as to a “person” his or her constitutional duty and rights, what he or she can do or not do.

    It’s not enough to just say “person/s” is mentioned in the United States Constitution 49 times, but to see it for yourself (forgo listing), and the realization was for the concern envisioned by the Framers that every person be secure in these rights explicitly spelled out, referenced and understood how these rights were to be applied to that “person.”

    Whereas, in the Second Amendment any reference to “person” is not to be found. Was there a reason? Which leaves the obvious question, why did the Framers use the noun “person/s” as liberally as they did throughout the Constitution 49 times and not apply this understanding to explicitly convey the same legal standard in defining an individual “persons” right to bear arms as a person?

    Justice Amy Coney Barrett dissent in Barr v Kanter (2019) Second Amendment argument acquiesced to 42 references to “person/s, of which 13 characterize either a gun or firearm. Her Second Amendment, “textualism” approach having zero reference to “person/s. Justice Barrett’s  view only recognizes “person/s” in Barr, as well in her many other 7th circuit rulings. It is her refusal to acknowledge, recognize or connect the U.S. Constitution benchmark legislative interpretive precept language of “person/s,” mandated in our Constitution 49 times, to the Second Amendment.
    Leaving Supreme Court Justice Barrett’s judgment in question.

    In the entire U.S. Constitution “militia” is mentioned 5 times. In these references there is no mention of “person” or “persons.” One reference to “people” in the Second Amendment. People, meaning not a person but persons in describing militia.

    Now comes the word “shall” mentioned in the Constitution 100 times. SHALL; ought to, must ..

    And interestingly, the word “shall” appears in the Second Amendment. “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and shall not be infringed.”

    “[S]hall not be infringed.” Adding another word “infringed” to clarify any misunderstanding as to the intent of the Second Amendment. Infringe. To encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another;

    The condition “Infringe” has put a stop as to any counter thoughts regarding the Second Amendment, as you shall  not infringe or encroach  on beliefs other to what is evident as to the subject “Militia.”

    Finally, clarifying “..the right of the people to keep and bear arms…
    People. Human beings making up a group or assembly or linked by a common interest.

    In closing, I am not against guns, everybody has them. I’m against using the Second Amendment illogically as a crutch. If it makes those feel better so be it. Just what it deserves, use it with a wink.

    William Heino Sr

  7. Her “legal” opinion changed because she thinks blacks are in danger from whites (as if)? Either the law is the law and the constitution is the constitution or we have situational legal and constitutional protections that that swing wildly back and forth all dependent on the feelings of a woke legal analyst? Maybe that is why she is no longer a lawyer?

    1. I have not been impressed by Barrett. I don’t think that anyone could find a “militia” that’s NOT composed of individual people or person/s. The militia is not given the right to bear arms by the constitution, is it? It’s the individuals who combine as a group to establish the militia who are given the right.

      1. P.S. It is also the individual person/s right NOT to join a particular militia; and still bear arms. Perhaps, to later join a different militia, with their constitutionally, rightfully own arms.

Leave a Reply

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