In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Is Sotomayor really anti-gun?
Ifticar
Member Posts: 58 ✭✭
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-oped0618chapmanjun18,0,5860636.column
quote:Last summer, the U.S. Supreme Court, for the first time ever, said the 2nd Amendment protects an individual's right to own a gun for self-defense. It was a historic decision that put real limits on gun control. But gun-rights advocates complain that someone didn't get the memo -- someone named Sonia Sotomayor.
Exhibit A is her decision in January to uphold the conviction of a New York man for possession of fighting sticks called nunchakus. He said the law violated his right to keep and bear arms. But in a unanimous decision joined by Sotomayor, the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals found "it is settled law . . . that the 2nd Amendment does not apply to the states and therefore imposed no limitations on New York's ability to prohibit the possession of nunchakus" -- or, by implication, firearms.
Does that sound like the sort of arrogant verdict you would expect from an activist, liberal, gun-hating judge? It shouldn't. Sotomayor's decision was a model of judicial restraint that was entirely appropriate given the Supreme Court's record.
--excerpted--
quote:Last summer, the U.S. Supreme Court, for the first time ever, said the 2nd Amendment protects an individual's right to own a gun for self-defense. It was a historic decision that put real limits on gun control. But gun-rights advocates complain that someone didn't get the memo -- someone named Sonia Sotomayor.
Exhibit A is her decision in January to uphold the conviction of a New York man for possession of fighting sticks called nunchakus. He said the law violated his right to keep and bear arms. But in a unanimous decision joined by Sotomayor, the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals found "it is settled law . . . that the 2nd Amendment does not apply to the states and therefore imposed no limitations on New York's ability to prohibit the possession of nunchakus" -- or, by implication, firearms.
Does that sound like the sort of arrogant verdict you would expect from an activist, liberal, gun-hating judge? It shouldn't. Sotomayor's decision was a model of judicial restraint that was entirely appropriate given the Supreme Court's record.
--excerpted--
Comments
Judson Berger, Shannon Bream
Judge Sonia Sotomayor could walk into a firestorm on Capitol Hill over her stance on gun rights, with conservatives beginning to question some controversial positions she's taken over the past several years on the Second Amendment.
Earlier this year, President Obama's Supreme Court nominee joined an opinion with the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that Second Amendment rights do not apply to the states.
A 2004 opinion she joined also cited as precedent that "the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right."
Ken Blackwell, a senior fellow with the Family Research Council, called Obama's nomination a "declaration of war against America's gun owners."
Such a line of attack could prove more effective than efforts to define Sotomayor as pro-abortion, efforts that essentially grasp at straws. Sotomayor's record on that hot-button issue reveals instances in which she has ruled against an abortion rights group and in favor of anti-abortion protesters, making her hard to pigeonhole.
But Sotomayor's position on gun control is far more crystallized.
Blackwell, who also ran unsuccessfully to head the Republican National Committee, told FOX News her position is "very, very disturbing."
"That puts our Second Amendment freedoms at risk," he said. "What she's basically saying is that your hometown can decide to suppress your Second Amendment freedoms."
The chief concern is her position in the 2009 Maloney v. Cuomo case, in which the court examined a claim by a New York attorney that a New York law that prohibited possession of nunchucks violated his Second Amendment rights. The Appeals Court affirmed the lower court's decision that the Second Amendment does not apply to the states.
The ruling explained that it was "settled law" that the Second Amendment applies only to limitations the federal government might seek on individual gun rights.
Despite last year's landmark Supreme Court ruling in the District of Columbia v. Heller, in which the court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms, the Maloney ruling determined that case "does not invalidate this longstanding principle" that states are not covered by the Second Amendment. (Another appeals court since the Heller case reached the opposite conclusion.)
Justice David Souter, whom Sotomayor would replace, dissented from the majority decision in D.C. v. Heller, so Sotomayor wouldn't necessarily tip the balance on such issues. But she's joining a split body -- the D.C. case was a 5-4 decision -- and with the Maloney case likely to be appealed to the Supreme Court her presence could be threatening to gun rights groups.
"We have concerns and we have questions," Andrew Arulanandam, public affairs director for the National Rifle Association, told FOXNews.com. He said the NRA would work with members of Congress to have those concerns addressed in the coming months, and that the NRA has researchers looking more closely at Sotomayor's gun rights record.
Ken Klukowski, a fellow and legal analyst with the American Civil Rights Union, predicted this issue would heat up as the confirmation process moves forward.
"If this nomination were not to succeed, it would likely be because of the Second Amendment issue," he said.
Klukowski questioned the brevity of the Maloney decision, which spanned only a few pages, more than the actual conclusion. He said it glossed over decades of relevant legal precedent.
"The idea that you would be the first circuit court to take up this profound, constitutional question after the Supreme Court's landmark ruling and only give it one paragraph is stunning," he said.
But Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said the issue of Sotomayor's gun rights position is being "overblown" since the court was merely following precedent. He agreed that the Heller decision did not mean Second Amendment rights apply to states.
He said any controversy over the issue would be a "red herring."
As interest groups launch a heated campaign to define Sotomayor and draw the battle lines ahead of her confirmation process, the White House has voiced unequivocal confidence in her judgment.
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said Thursday that Obama was "very comfortable with her interpretation of the Constitution being similar to that of his."
Obama's Supreme Pick
Nathan Figler
American News Inc.
May 26, 2009
President Obama has made a bold choice to replace Supreme Court Justice David Souter with Appeals Court Judge Sonia Sotomayor. Ms. Sotomayor, if confirmed, would be the first Hispanic Justice and would be only the third woman on the Court.
Sotomayor's resume is impressive, including a 1993 ruling in favor of a homeless man beaten by NYPD officers and her landmark decision in 2002 regarding terrorism suspects. In that case, she determined that suspects captured on the battlefield must receive all rights afforded to American citizens under the Constitution. Her controversial decision was later overturned by an Appellate Court, but still influenced current policy.
Sotomayor is a graduate from Princeton University, where her legal theses included Race in the American Classroom, and Undying Injustice: American "Exceptionalism" and Permanent Bigotry, and Deadly Obsession: American Gun Culture. In this text, the student Sotomayor explained that the Second Amendment to the Constitution did not actually afford individual citizens the right to bear arms, but only duly conferred organizations, like the military. Instead of making guns illegal, she argues that they have been illegal for individuals to own since the passing of the Bill of Rights.
Ms. Sotomayor's story is certainly one of success over adversity. Despite growing up in the projects, she has risen to become one of the most well-respected legal minds by the American left. Before joining the appeals court, Sotomayor was a legal consultant for the NYCLU.
Even with her meteoric rise, the nominee still believes there is work to do. In a 1999 interview with a local author, Sotomayor stated that she believed that the United States, "...may never truly be fixed. Racism and economic warfare still crush the dreams of countless second-class citizens. The unfair dimensions of our culture are staggering. You cannot succeed if you are born poor; you simply cannot."
The nomination is expected to go before the United States Senate where Republicans may give a strong fight against what may be considered "judicial activism."
quote:"The idea that you would be the first circuit court to take up this profound, constitutional question after the Supreme Court's landmark ruling and only give it one paragraph is stunning," he said.
The 9th Circuit court decision came before Sotomayor's decision.
Whether the SCOTUS will take up the 9th Circuit Court's ruling (or the 7th Circuit Court's opposite ruling, for that matter) is irrelevant.
Whether the SCOTUS will take up the 9th Circuit Court's ruling (or the 7th Circuit Court's opposite ruling, for that matter) is irrelevant.
My point was not to say that she is not anti-gun. My point was to say that she will not be allowed to participate in the case(s) questioning whether the 2nd Amendment applies to the States. She will have no influence in deciding this critically important gun issue. Whether she is pro-gun or anti-gun is irrelevant to this issue.
A select C&P excerpt was posted from the linked story. The following is an excerpt from that C&P.: quote:Does that sound like the sort of arrogant verdict you would expect from an activist, liberal, gun-hating judge? It shouldn't. Sotomayor's decision was a model of judicial restraint that was entirely appropriate given the Supreme Court's record. It would certainly seem as if the question, combined with the excerpt from the article, were designed to elicit or produce the thought that 'Sotomayor' may actually not be anti-gun.
But, hey, here I am again, raining on someone's parade, huh?[:)]
You shilling (for) something (or someone) specific here Ifticar? If not, what is the point/intended message of your post?
Then perhaps the question should have been "Will Sotomayor's anti-gun stance have any effect on any SCOTUS decision vis-a-vis the 9th and/or 7th Circuit courts' ruling on whether the 2nd applies to the states."
I posted the article because I thought it would be of interest to this group. The thread title is the title of the article.
Nope. But I do seem to have gathered a small group of trolls that want to follow me around. I am flattered.
quote:You shilling (for) something (or someone) specific here Ifticar? If not, what is the point/intended message of your post?
Nope. But I do seem to have gathered a small group of trolls that want to follow me around. I am flattered.
Not trolls just Good Men that belive in the Constitution. Something that is just a dam peace of paper to you.[V]
Are you talking about the Mensa Members Against the NRA (MMANRA)? Are you also a member?
quote:Not trolls just Good Men that belive in the Constitution.
Are you talking about the Mensa Members Against the NRA (MMANRA)? Are you also a member?
I think that i'll claim membership in that org, since you seem to deride it.
How about we delve into who you are philosophically, and what you are all about.
Shall we?
Lets talk NRA. I'll start.
The NRA supports gun control and they have, almost since their inception.
Your turn.
quote:Not trolls just Good Men that belive in the Constitution.
Are you talking about the Mensa Members Against the NRA (MMANRA)? Are you also a member?
I believe he will find that a bunch of us are on it! He has nothing to say concerning the NRA that has already been disproved more than once.
I am not deriding MMANRA. This is a free country.If you think the NRA sucks, you are entitled to your opinon.
quote:The NRA supports gun control and they have, almost since their inception.
Sure. Just like those FFLs who refuse to sell firearms to California residents are supporting gun control. Those FFLS support gun control and help the liberals deny California residents of their Second Amendment rights.
quote:I think that i'll claim membership in that org, since you seem to deride it.
I am not deriding MMANRA. This is a free country.If you think the NRA sucks, you are entitled to your opinon.
quote:The NRA supports gun control and they have, almost since their inception.
Sure. Just like those FFLs who refuse to sell firearms to California residents are supporting gun control. Those FFLS support gun control and help the liberals deny California residents of their Second Amendment rights.
What 2A rights do we have left here in Cali or the rest of the US for that matter????? Do the #s 4473 ring a bell with anyone.
The California laws governing the shipping of a firearm by an FFL into California require about five minutes worth of extra work for the FFL. There are no fees involved. Many Second Amendment supporting, anti-Gun Control FFLs will do this extra work.
quote:Those culpable for California's unconstitutional gun-control laws are the citizens who sit by and allow people like Pelosi, Feinstein, and Boxer to enact whatever idiotic nonsense they can dream up.
Therefor you, likewise and personally, are responsible for the Federal Government's unconstitutional gun-control laws. You sat back and let the liberals in congress slowly reduce our Second Amendment rights. Why did you do that? Why didn't you stop that nonsense?
You are also, likewise and personally, responsible for the restrictions the Georgia has imposed upon the concealed carry of firearms. Why did you allow those laws to be enacted. Why didn't you stop that nonsense?
Georgia's concealed-carry law is the only unconstitutional gun law on the books here. Every election cycle here the same nonsense that is state law in California comes up for a vote, and is defeated.
The NFA of 1934 and the GCA of 1968 were enacted federally without the citizenry being allowed to vote for them. Both were typical knee-jerk reactions to assassinations of celebrities from far-left ideologues in the Congress and Senate. I was not born in time to witness the passage of the NFA, but I wrote both of my US Senators and Congressman, as well as the state General Assembly in opposition to the GCA of 1968.
How about you? No doubt you sent the NRA money to finance the manufacture of baseball caps and LaPierre's African safaris.
You should have tried harder. Until you get those CCW laws repealed you have no grounds to criticize any other state's laws.
quote:The NFA of 1934 and the GCA of 1968 were enacted federally without the citizenry being allowed to vote for them. Both were typical knee-jerk reactions to assassinations of celebrities from far-left ideologues in the Congress and Senate. I was not born in time to witness the passage of the NFA, but I wrote both of my US Senators and Congressman, as well as the state General Assembly in opposition to the GCA of 1968.
There have been a whole host of Federal Laws enacted since you failed to stop the '68 GCA. You failed to prevent those laws. Please don't try worm out of your failures.
quote:How about you? No doubt you sent the NRA money to finance the manufacture of baseball caps and LaPierre's African safaris.
Nope. The NRA has not seen a penny from me since 1968.
quote:You should have tried harder. Until you get those CCW laws repealed you have no grounds to criticize any other state's laws.Hogwash. Each election cycle here brings the introduction of restrictive gun-control legislation similar to that enacted by states like California. The voters always defeat it and the idiots who support it are never elected (unlike California). Therefore I have every right to criticize voters in states that allow them.
quote:There have been a whole host of Federal Laws enacted since you failed to stop the '68 GCA. You failed to prevent those laws. Please don't try worm out of your failures.Not only has this ill-informed belief already been addressed, it is untrue. Virtually all of the anti-firearm legislation passed since the inception of those two federal laws was enacted by the various states whose governments are controlled by far-left ideologues who are repeatedly placed into office by the indoctrinated citizenry who reside there.
Unless, of course, you support , defend, and aid in that tyranny.
Always supposing, of course, one remains committed to restoring freedom and the Republic by whatever means, at some point. Even dying peacefully in bed, never having fired a shot...but speaking out against the tyrants, indicates a far better man then the bulk of the brain-dead we are afflicted with.
Those that are `outvoted' by the gutless Quislings that comprise the bulk of people that reside here in America today are not the problem...unless they voted for such as bush or mccain, actually expecting relief from that tyranny.
I find it perfectly proper to condemn those remaining within the republican/democrat camps for their efforts to dismantle the tenets of America.
Castigating a man that is intelligent enough to understand that we no longer have a Republic merely reveals the abysmal depths of ones' own ignorance.
The California problem is often remarked upon.
Personally, were I selling weapons, I MIGHT..maybe...sell a weapon to an individual in California that subscribed totally to the obvious and true meaning of the Second Amendment....and none at all to those that support gun control.
Come to think about it...I can do that right here in my home state. I have refused to sell weapons to people before....today, I believe that I will add one more caveat to selling, if I ever sell another ;
Along with baggy pants and nose rings and orange hair , the prospective buyer WILL support the Second, AS WRITTEN...or no trade or sale.
We should disarm beast-lovers, Quislings, cowards, and their ilk.
Wow. You don't even know about the many federal laws you have allowed to be enacted. Maybe you should at least follow the NRA legislative alerts. [:0]
You are not aware of the ten different Federal Laws dealing with banning gun ownership to "domestic offenders." You better hope that your wife never takes a protective order out against you.
You are not aware that you can not buy a fully automatic weapon manufactured after 1986?
You were not aware of the Assault Weapons ban that you allowed to be passed back in the '90s? Don't worry about it. We have fixed that for now.
You, sir, are a hypocrite. You condemn others for what you, yourself, have done.
You have chosen to not sell firearms based upon the characteristics of the individual person. Not only is this your right but one could say that it is your duty to not participate in the arming of certain individuals.
Refusing to sell to a law abiding, second amendment loving citizen, who is stuck amongst a group liberal freaks is quite another.
No difference at all.
I place anti-gunners on exactly the same level as I do pedophiles.
If my next door neighbor insisted upon taking in a child molester after release from prison, not only would I shun the pedophile ..but the neighbor as well.
California is a prime example of a state so far gone as to be unrecoverable. Any further `aid' is merely wasted upon the few decent folks left out there.
The best plan is to withdraw, allow the tyrants their head, and wait to pick up the pieces.
Pretty much the same as the country as a whole. Sorry for the carnage among the Americans left out there...but there are precious few, anyway.
Your continuing attacks are interesting, indeed. Perhaps you could turn those attacks towards the anti-gunners...instead of those that are perfectly aware of the problem.
I fully support eviscerating anti-gunners...including those poor deluded fools that support NICS check, waiting periods, ect..(NRA) ...but hard charging folks that understand the Second Amendment, Orginal meaning, leads to questions concerning ones' motives...no matter HOW many questions are answered in the affirmative.
Ifticar - I live in Kali to so your mind set is well know to me, but what you dont see is if all the FFL's stop shipping to CA that could very well be the spark that gets this pit of a state to pull its head out. You have to draw a line in the sand somewhere, if not this one then when, the next peace of bs that Sac. thinks up? or the next.....
quote:Virtually all of the anti-firearm legislation passed since the inception of those two federal laws was enacted by the various states
Wow. You don't even know about the many federal laws you have allowed to be enacted. Maybe you should at least follow the NRA legislative alerts. [:0]
You are not aware of the ten different Federal Laws dealing with banning gun ownership to "domestic offenders." You better hope that your wife never takes a protective order out against you.
You are not aware that you can not buy a fully automatic weapon manufactured after 1986?
You were not aware of the Assault Weapons ban that you allowed to be passed back in the '90s? Don't worry about it. We have fixed that for now.
You, sir, are a hypocrite. You condemn others for what you, yourself, have done.
I'm aware of all of those, genius. Another word you might benefit from looking up in a dictionary: "virtually." You named 12 federal laws. Take a look at the approximately 22,000 others passed by state legislatures, then blather your nonsense.
Incidentally, the 1994 Omnibus Crime Bill was allowed to be enacted by the idiots that voted for Bill Clinton.
No matter how pissed we Second Amendment loving California citizens get, we can not be effective against the overwhelming mob of effete intellectual snobs here in California. The only hope we have is for the SCOTUS to trump California State Law.
You could no more do anything about Ominbus Crime Bill than I can do anything about the idiots that passed California laws in question here. You are making me responsible for those California laws. It is only fair that I make you responsible for the Georgia and Federal laws that you could do nothing about.
My friend, stop and consider that my only sin here is that I am unhappy because some people will not sell me a gun because of where I live. Because of that I have been given all sorts of grief. Because I want to exercise my Second Amendment rights I have been pounced upon and even called a liar by the likes of you.
Once gain, because of these simple minded personal attacks, I am terminating my participation in a thread.
Carry on.
Carry on.
You HAVE no Second Amendment Rights anymore. None of us do. You are absolutely correct lashing out. However...you pick the wrong targets.
Go over to General...there you will find a target rich environment... the typical stupid gun owner that supports gun laws of this or that type.
What is happening in California MUST happen Nationwide ..and more laws to boot.
Why would I want to attempt to make your life easier ? The last, best hope for freedom is for MILLIONS of gun owners becoming unhappy...VERY unhappy. You just happen to live in the territory of the most degenerate segment of humanity ..those willing to give up every semblance of freedom for warm weather and a promise of handouts by the government.
Therefore, you lead with your chin.
An article was posted by a left-wing author which ignores the facts of Sotomayor's stance on gun ownership and employs the standard argument of the left - "your guy does it too." The article completely misses the fact that judges must be apolitical - interpret law according to the Constitution, not vice versa.
When the question was answered, backed by facts, the OP launched back into the "your guy does it too" tactic regarding elected state officials, which also was proven to be false.
No amount of smoke screen can obscure the fact that the citizens of California repeatedly allow oppressive legislation to be enacted by putting oppressors into office.
They admit that they kowtow to government out of control, and others should do the same. If citizens do not agree with the way things are done in an area, and they cannot change them at the ballot box, they should MOVE, not demand that everyone knuckle under the way that they have.
No amount of smoke screen can obscure the fact that the citizens of California repeatedly allow oppressive legislation to be enacted by putting oppressors into office.
They admit that they kowtow to government out of control, and others should do the same. If citizens do not agree with the way things are done in an area, and they cannot change them at the ballot box, they should MOVE, not demand that everyone knuckle under the way that they have.
Not all of us have the luxury to leave, but have to stay and make the best of a difficult situation. Not all of us make such demands, but realize it's up to us to change how things are, if at all possible. It's not up to out-of-state FFLs happily shipping guns to CA, and it's not up to all the wonderful folks here on the boards. We're like a platoon cut off behind enemy lines that knows there is no rescue coming because the rest of the army is pinned down under enemy fire. We have to make the choice to stay and fight or make a run to friendly territory, but realize that the war is still being waged no matter where we end up, that there will be no rest elsewhere.
For me, I must stay...many generations of my family as well as my son are buried here. I would invite other like-minded CA residents to stay informed and act where possible. A couple good places to start are crpa.org and calguns.net. Thank you for your support.