Sotomayor is Anti GUN

[beerbelly]

Just saw on Fox news that she says that the second amendment only applys to the federal government and that the individual has no right to own guns!
  Everyone had best get on the phone and e-mail to your senators. Get everyone you can to call! This will be a very big set back to gun ownership if she is confirmed.
                               Beerbelly

[jimster]

The guy who's place she is taking voted against the right to self defense and the second amendment as well...so what's the diff.

Your rights do not come from government anyway, would be nice if they would not "infringe" on them, but they will and have anyway. 

In the end, the only rights we will have are the rights we keep anyway, regardless of their laws or interpretations.  I'm PAYING for my right to carry now as it is in this State, ...truth be told, I carried before CCW's laws passed here, and will continue to carry if they go away. 

[Questor]

I cannot understand how someone can be a judge and still not know the history of our constitution and bill of rights. Surely she must know what the framers intended, and is simply applying a personal agenda. The history is very clear.

[mauser98us]

politician=democrat=New Yorker=liberal......No big surprise

[gstewart44]

I have already written my Senators in the State of Florida to not support her confirmation.    Any judge that acknowledges and condones Legislation from the Bench,  does not deserve to sit in the court.   What happened to separation of Powers?  

that she as a Latina, can make a "better" decision than white males, is insulting and racist.  If you substitute "white" for Latina in the previous sentance, and "any other minority" in place of 'white' then you most certainly would have a racist statement being attacked by Rev.s Al and Jessie.  

I am most troubled by a judge that does not acknowledge the decision of the Court she wishes to rise to ..... meaning Heller vs. DC.    She has stated that "the Second Amendment applies only to limitations the federal government seeks to impose” on an American’s right to bear arms."

This clearly is in conflict with the opinion of SCOTUS in Heller vs DC.  

I hope the Senators listen to their constituents, if not then it's time for another sweep of the Senate and House.

[Skunk]

Original Link: http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/05/27/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5044428.shtml



May 27, 2009 5:40 PM
Gun Rights Groups Are Wary Of Sotomayor
Posted by Declan McCullagh



Second Amendment advocates are responding warily to President Obama's nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Alan Gottlieb, chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, said on Wednesday that "Judge Sotomayor's position on the Second Amendment is a clear signal that Mr. Obama's claim that he supports gun rights is nothing but lip service."

Dave Kopel of the free-market Independence Institute predicts that "Judge Sotomayor's record suggests hostility, rather than empathy, for the tens of millions of Americans who exercise their right to keep and bear arms." And Ken Blackwell of the Family Research Council believes her nomination amounts to "a declaration of war against America's gun owners."

The difficulty in evaluating Sotomayor's views on the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is the lack of definitive statements. No old law review articles advocating a Scalia-esque originalist approach have been unearthed; no speeches to the Brady Campaign calling for nationwide gun confiscation have surfaced.

A handful of Sotomayor's Second Circuit decisions, however, have.

In a 2004 criminal case, U.S. v. Sanchez-Villar, a three-judge panel that included Sotomayor wrote that "the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right."

Another case involved a fellow named James Maloney who was arrested in Port Washington, N.Y. for possessing a nunchaku -- typically sticks connected by rope or chain -- in his home. Maloney claimed that the Second Amendment rendered the state law banning nunchakus unconstitutional.

A three-judge panel including Sotomayor unanimously rejected his claim in January 2009, ruling that the Second Amendment "imposes a limitation on only federal, not state, legislative efforts." All members of the panel agreed with this sentiment, but because the opinion was unsigned, it's not clear who wrote it.

The trouble with that line of reasoning is that it relies on a 1886 case called Presser v. Illinois, which did in fact say the Second Amendment "is a limitation only upon the power of Congress and the national government, and not upon that of the state." But that was before a long line of subsequent U.S. Supreme Court rulings that applied the Bill of Rights to state governments; the concept is known as the "incorporation doctrine."

(And, besides, even in Presser, the Supreme Court went out of its way to note "the states cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms.")

That has left gun rights advocates feeling a bit like the decision from Sotomayor's panel this year cherry-picked cases to reach a desired result -- instead of trying to interpret the law fairly. "The Sotomayor per curiam opinion ignores Due Process incorporation, even though any serious analysis of whether the Fourteenth Amendment makes the Second Amendment enforceable against the states would have to address the issue," Kopel says.

By contrast, the Ninth Circuit, by some counts the most liberal in the nation, ruled in April that the Second Amendment does apply to state laws. Meanwhile, Maloney, the defendant in the New York case, is appealing his loss to the U.S. Supreme Court, and the Seventh Circuit heard oral arguments this week in a related case.

Something with a name like "incorporation doctrine" may sound like an obscure topic only a law professor could love, but it's really not. These disputes will decide whether or not states and municipalities can legally disarm their residents, or whether the Second Amendment right the Supreme Court recognized last year in D.C. v. Heller applies to state and federal laws equally.

In some sense, if Sotomayor holds the same views as the man she's been selected to succeed -- retiring justice David Souter -- not much will change in terms of Second Amendment jurisprudence. Souter disagreed with Heller's 5-4 majority opinion, signing on to a dissent that said: "The majority's decision threatens severely to limit the ability of more knowledgeable, democratically elected officials to deal with gun-related problems."

But based on Candidate Obama's remarks last year, gun owners may have hoped for more. Mr. Obama's campaign platform said he "believes the Second Amendment creates an individual right, and he respects the constitutional rights of Americans to bear arms."

Souter rejected the idea of the Second Amendment protecting an individual right; in her 2004 joint opinion, so did Sotomayor. During confirmation hearings, expect pro-gun senators to ask the judge if she agrees more with her predecessor or the stated views of the president who nominated her.

Original Link: http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/05/27/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5044428.shtml

[Redhawk1]

The gun war is getting ready to go into overdrive.  Sotomayor was appointed for a reason.

[Oldshooter]

No she aint she's anti constitution and that makes her just right for obama! she has ruled that the second amendment does not provide for citizens to bear arms. (this decision is due to come before the supreme court as will several other notable decisions she has made in the past) Thank an obama supporter when you see one!

[nomosendero]

I cannot understand how someone can be a judge and still not know the history of our constitution and bill of rights. Surely she must know what the framers intended, and is simply applying a personal agenda. The history is very clear.

Knowing & caring are 2 different things. She knows, but doesn't care. But it is not just her agenda, it's Obama's agenda & only those who are committed to carring out HIS agenda will be apointed for anything. I will contact our Congressmen as well, but she will be confirmed period. Socialist Demoncraps are on a role.

[flintlock]

She doesn't care what white males think, she thinks she is smarter than we are...

Our fore fathers knew that the difference between a monarchy and a democracy was a man's right to have a gun not only for personal protection but for putting game on the table as well...

[oldandslow]

I don't know about anyone else but I have already e-mailed my new liberal democratic representative and my new really liberal democratic senator. I doubt it will make any difference but at least they know my feelings on the subject.

I know democrat and rep. and senator are supposed to be capitalized. I just can't bring myself to do it anymore. 

A footnote: I e-mailed my thoughts to both about the bank bailout. Suprisingly, both claimed to have voted against it when I received their replies. If they vote not to confirm Sotomayor I may have to change my opinion of them.

[gstewart44]

She doesn't care what white males think, she thinks she is smarter than we are...

Our fore fathers knew that the difference between a monarchy and a democracy was a man's right to have a gun not only for personal protection but for putting game on the table as well...

And to remind the Gubment that they can't ride roughshod over the people the way they were doing in Europe.   

[teamnelson]

Here's the text of a speech she gave where she explains that she is racially biased and gender biased, and that she believes that is okay for a judge. The American Bar Association has revealed that she is a member of La Raza, the Latino KKK.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/politics/15judge.text.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1
http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0509/Tancredo_La_Raza_is_Latino_KKK.html

[Cement Man]

Here's the text of a speech she gave where she explains that she is racially biased and gender biased, and that she believes that is okay for a judge. The American Bar Association has revealed that she is a member of La Raza, the Latino KKK.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/politics/15judge.text.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1
http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0509/Tancredo_La_Raza_is_Latino_KKK.html

TN - Thanks for posting.  Good reads and very important for people to recognize her biases.  I would only add that you said "she believes that is okay for a judge".  I think she believes it is more than okay - but that her prejudices are foundational to being a judge and make her a better one at that.  She's "emPATHETIC" all right.

[torpedoman]

An obama appointee anti gun, you must be kidding

[Cement Man]

Yeah, who woulda thunk that after all those campaign promises huh? 

[zacharoo]

Another white american hating minority vote pulling obanite. What do you expect from a non-american bron president! I will keep my Freedom Guns And Money let the OBAMANITES TAKE THE CHANGE!!!
Zacharoo

[Explorer1]

Oldshooter got it right, this is just another big move in a frontal attack on our Consitution and the very principles on which this nation was founded.

The Little Chicago Thug told us he was going to make changes, many - like the college kid I am thinking of- did not beleive he really meant statements like "redistribution of wealth" but that was simply partisan attacks.  Well, we are going to relearn some major history lessons the hard way under this clown.  Even Bozo Biden has been making fun of  his teleprompter handicap!

The real question is can we survive?  We have before, but I suspect the Romans and Greeks thought the same thing!!!