PDA

View Full Version : Obama Declares War on America’s Gun Owners With Supreme Court Pick


Acujeff
May 27, 2009, 06:53 PM
Obama Declares War on America’s Gun Owners With Supreme Court Pick
By Ken Blackwell
Senior Fellow, American Civil Rights Union/Family Research Council

May 26th, 2009
http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/05/26/blackwell_ken_obama_sotomayor/

President Obama’s nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor is a declaration of war against America’s gun owners and the Second Amendment to our Constitution. If gun owners mobilize and unite, it’s possible (though unlikely) to stop this radical nominee.

—————

According to Judge Sotomayor, if your state or city bans all guns the way Washington, D.C. did, that’s okay under the Constitution.

—————

Last year the Supreme Court handed down the landmark decision in D.C. v. Heller, holding that the Second Amendment right to bear arms applies to individual citizens in their private lives. The ruling marked a turning point in gun rights in this country.

In the past year, the biggest question courts now face is whether the Second Amendment applies to the states. That may sound crazy, but the reality is that the Bill of Rights only controls the federal government, it doesn’t apply directly to states or cities. Only the parts of the Bill of Rights that are “incorporated” through the Fourteenth Amendment apply to the states.

Since the Heller decision, only two federal appeals courts have written on the Second Amendment. That’s six judges out of about 170. Of those six, three said the Second Amendment does apply to the states. And those judges were out of the liberal Ninth Circuit in California, and included a judge appointed by Bill Clinton and another appointed by Jimmy Carter. — Even leftist judges can get this.

But not Judge Sonia Sotomayor. She is one of only three federal appellate judges in America to issue a court opinion saying that the Second Amendment does not apply to states. The case was Maloney v. Cuomo, and it came down this past January.

That means if Chicago, or even the state of Illinois or New York, wants to ban you from owning any guns at all, even in your own house, that’s okay with her. According to Judge Sotomayor, if your state or city bans all guns the way Washington, D.C. did, that’s okay under the Constitution.

This issue could not be more important. Today, on the very day President Obama has announced Judge Sotomayor’s nomination, the National Rifle Association is arguing Second Amendment incorporation in court before the Seventh Circuit in a case challenging the Chicago ban on handguns.

If this case, or one like it, goes to the Supreme Court, Justice Sotomayor would say that Chicago can ban all your guns. If she can persuade her liberal colleagues on the Court to join her, it could become the law of the land that states and cities can ban guns. Should that happen, then you can expect anti-gun liberals in state legislatures to rush to pass new state laws doing exactly that.

The White House is telling us all about Judge Sotomayor’s compelling personal story — and it is an amazing story of what is possible “only in America.” But compelling personal stories are not the question. Miguel Estrada, whom President George W. Bush nominated to the D.C. Circuit appeals court and was planning on nominating to the Supreme Court, had a compelling story as a Hispanic immigrant who legally came to this country not even speaking English. Democrats filibustered Mr. Estrada.

Supporters point out that Judge Sotomayor was first appointed by George H.W. Bush for the federal trial court — before Bill Clinton elevated her to the Second Circuit appeals court. That’s true, but George H.W. Bush also gave us Justice David Souter, so clearly he wasn’t too careful about putting liberals on the federal bench. We can’t allow the left to hide behind the Bushes.

But when it comes to gun rights, we don’t need to guess. Judge Sotomayor has put in writing what she thinks. President Obama has nominated a radically anti-Second Amendment judge to be our newest Supreme Court justice.

There are a number of pro-Second Amendment Democratic senators from deeply red states, including Mark Begich from Alaska, Jon Tester and Max Baucus from Montana, Ben Nelson from Nebraska, Byron Dorgan and Kent Conrad from North Dakota, and Tim Johnson from South Dakota.

These senators will jeopardize their seats if they vote to support an anti-gun radical for the Supreme Court. Second Amendment supporters will now be up in arms over this radical anti-Second Amendment nominee, and you should never underestimate the political power of American gun owners.

Ken Blackwell is a senior fellow with the American Civil Rights Union and the Family Research Council.

Glenn E. Meyer
May 27, 2009, 07:01 PM
Folks, if we discuss her theories on gun rights - that's OK. Let's not go down the low road as happened in the other thread about her. Stay on this topic - her views of gun rights.

Hint, hint!!

Trapp
May 27, 2009, 07:24 PM
Sotomayor was also a member of the panel that issued a per curiam opinion in another controversial case that may be headed for the Court next year. In Maloney v. Cuomo, 554 F.3d 56 (2009), the panel considered (as relevant here) a claim by a New York attorney that a state law prohibiting possession of a chuka stick (also known as nunchaku, a device used in martial arts consisting of two sticks joined by a rope or chain) violated his Second Amendment right to bear arms. The district court rejected the claim on the ground that the Second Amendment does not apply to the states. On appeal, the panel affirmed. Relying on the Supreme Court’s 1886 decision in Presser v. Illinois, it explained that it was “settled law . . . that the Second Amendment applies only to limitations the federal government seeks to impose” on the individual’s right to bear arms.

I'm freekin lost!!! The second amendment only applies to the limitations the federal government seeks to impose

Someone please explain how that means the 2nd doesn't apply to the states!?!?!?!

Are they saying that the constitution only applies to the Fed Gov and not the states!?!?

B. Lahey
May 27, 2009, 07:39 PM
She can't be any worse than Souter. It's a wash.

Who did you expect him to nominate? Wayne LaPierre?

csmsss
May 27, 2009, 09:11 PM
I'm freekin lost!!! The second amendment only applies to the limitations the federal government seeks to impose

Someone please explain how that means the 2nd doesn't apply to the states!?!?!?!

Are they saying that the constitution only applies to the Fed Gov and not the states!?!?Yes. The legal theory behind this is, well...interesting to say the least, but the concept of applying Amendments 1-10 to the U.S. Constitution to the states is called incorporation. What has evolved over time is a doctrine called "selective incorporation", where only certain of the rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights are incorporated to the states as well. The 2nd Amendment was never incorporated in this way, primarily because it was, at least until D.C. v. Heller, viewed not as a personal, but as a collective right. There was seen to be no need to incorporate collective rights against the states. There are current cases before the 2nd and 9th federal appellate circuits addressing this issue, one or more of which will undoubtedly reach the Supreme Court.

HuntAndFish
May 27, 2009, 09:17 PM
According to Judge Breyer Souter Ginsberg Stevens Sotomayor, if your state or city bans all guns the way Washington, D.C. did, that’s okay under the Constitution.


There. Fixed it.

Trapp
May 27, 2009, 09:27 PM
The 2nd Amendment was never incorporated in this way, primarily because it was, at least until D.C. v. Heller, viewed not as a personal, but as a collective right.

So by precedence she was right in her opinion?

Tom Servo
May 27, 2009, 09:29 PM
She can't be any worse than Souter. It's a wash. Who did you expect him to nominate? Wayne LaPierre?
Bingo. It's still four against five. The balance doesn't change. What's more, she's taking the bench at a point when Ricci may be heard before the court. That places her in an...interesting position, since she ruled on it in the 2nd Circuit.

What if it gets overturned, as six out of her seven other decisions were when they reached the Court?

Methinks she's going to tread very carefully and very quietly.

And now back to our regular programming.

DonR101395
May 27, 2009, 09:31 PM
So by precedence she was right in her opinion?

If so, it would be one of the few times.


Looks like she's qualified to me.
She's had 5 reversals out of 7 of her cases that went before the Supreme Court.
One case upheld, but her reasoning was cited unanimously as faulty.
One case pending.
Yep, sounds like she's qualified to me.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/26/sotomayor.resume/index.html#cnnSTCTex

Quote:
Cases Reviewed by the Supreme Court
• Ricci v. DeStefano 530 F.3d 87 (2008) -- decision pending as of 5/26/2009
• Riverkeeper, Inc. vs. EPA, 475 F.3d 83 (2007) -- reversed 6-3 (Dissenting: Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg)
• Knight vs. Commissioner, 467 F.3d 149 (2006) -- upheld, but reasoning was unanimously faulted
• Dabit vs. Merrill Lynch, 395 F.3d 25 (2005) -- reversed 8-0
• Empire Healthchoice Assurance, Inc. vs. McVeigh, 396 F.3d 136 (2005) -- reversed 5-4 (Dissenting: Breyer, Kennedy, Souter, Alito)
• Malesko v. Correctional Services Corp., 299 F.3d 374 (2000) -- reversed 5-4 (Dissenting: Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer)
• Tasini vs. New York Times, et al, 972 F. Supp. 804 (1997) -- reversed 7-2 (Dissenting: Stevens, Breyer)
• Affirmative Action (New Haven firefighter case): Sotomayor was part of a three-judge panel that ruled in February 2008 to uphold a lower court decision supporting the City of New Haven's decision to throw out the results of an exam to determine promotions within the city's fire department. Only one Hispanic and no African-American firefighters qualified for promotion based on the exam; the City subsequently decided not to certify the results and issued no promotions. In June 2008, Sotomayor was part of a 7-6 majority to deny a rehearing of the case by the full court. The Supreme Court agreed to review the case and heard oral arguments in April 2009. Ricci v. DeStefano 530 F.3d 87 (2008)
• Environment (Protection of fish at power plants): Sotomayor, writing for a three-judge panel, ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency may not engage in a cost-benefit analysis in implementing a rule that the "best technology available" must be used to limit the environmental impact of power plants on nearby aquatic life. The case involved power plants that draw water from lakes and rivers for cooling purposes, killing various fish and aquatic organisms in the process. Sotomayor ruled that the "best technology" regulation did not allow the EPA to weigh the cost of implementing the technology against the overall environmental benefit when issuing its rules. The Supreme Court reversed Sotomayor's ruling in a 6-3 decision, saying that Sotomayor's interpretation of the "best technology" rule was too narrow. Justices Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg dissented, siding with Sotomayor's position. Riverkeeper, Inc. vs. EPA, 475 F.3d 83 (2007)
• Taxes (Deductability of trust fees): In 2006, Sotomayor upheld a lower tax court ruling that certain types of fees paid by a trust are only partly tax deductable. The Supreme Court upheld Sotomayor's decision but unanimously rejected the reasoning she adopted, saying that her approach "flies in the face of the statutory language." Knight vs. Commissioner, 467 F.3d 149 (2006)
• Finance (Rights of investors to sue firms in state court): In a 2005 ruling, Sotomayor overturned a lower court decision and allowed investors to bring certain types of fraud lawsuits against investment firms in state court rather than in federal court. The lower court had agreed with the defendant Merrill Lynch's argument that the suits were invalid because the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 required that such suits be brought only in federal court. The Supreme Court unanimously overturned Sotomayor's ruling in an 8-0 decision, saying that the federal interest in overseeing securities market cases prevails, and that doing otherwise could give rise to "wasteful, duplicative litigation." Dabit vs. Merrill Lynch, 395 F.3d 25 (2005)
• Health Insurance (Reimbursement of insurance benefits): In 2005, Sotomayor ruled against a health insurance company that sued the estate of a deceased federal employee who received $157,000 in insurance benefits as the result of an injury. The wife of the federal employee had won $3.2 million in a separate lawsuit from those whom she claimed caused her husband's injuries. The health insurance company sued for reimbursement of the benefits paid to the federal employee, saying that a provision in the federal insurance plan requires paid benefits to be reimbursed when the beneficiary is compensated for an injury by a third party. The Supreme Court upheld Sotomayor's ruling in a 5-4 opinion. Justices Breyer, Kennedy, Souter, and Alito dissented. Empire Healthchoice Assurance, Inc. vs. McVeigh, 396 F.3d 136 (2005)
• Civil Rights (Right to sue federal government and its agents): Sotomayor, writing for the court in 2000, supported the right of an individual to sue a private corporation working on behalf of the federal government for alleged violations of that individual's constitutional rights. Reversing a lower court decision, Sotomayor found that an existing law, known as "Bivens," which allows suits against individuals working for the federal government for constitutional rights violations, could be applied to the case of a former prisoner seeking to sue the private company operating the federal halfway house facility in which he resided. The Supreme Court reversed Sotomayor's ruling in a 5-4 decision, saying that the Bivens law could not be expanded to cover private entities working on behalf of the federal government. Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer dissented, siding with Sotomayor's original ruling. Malesko v. Correctional Services Corp., 299 F.3d 374 (2000)
• Intellectual Property (Distribution of freelance material): As a district court judge in 1997, Sotomayor heard a case brought by a group of freelance journalists who asserted that various news organizations, including the New York Times, violated copyright laws by reproducing the freelancers' work on electronic databases and archives such as "Lexis/Nexis" without first obtaining their permission. Sotomayor ruled against the freelancers and said that publishers were within their rights as outlined by the 1976 Copyright Act. The appellate court reversed Sotomayor's decision, siding with the freelancers, and the Supreme Court upheld the appellate decision (therefore rejecting Sotomayor's original ruling). Justices Stevens and Breyer dissented, taking Sotomayor's position. Tasini vs. New York Times, et al, 972 F. Supp. 804 (1997)

gc70
May 27, 2009, 10:37 PM
She's had 10 reversals out of 14 of her cases that went before the Supreme Court.

DonR101395: Only 7 cases were actually listed, first giving the case names and then a short discussion of each.

Based on the list provided, the record is 5 reversed, 1 upheld, and 1 pending.

DonR101395
May 27, 2009, 10:44 PM
I gotcha now. I read it wrong and will fix it.

gc70
May 27, 2009, 10:59 PM
Someone please explain how that means the 2nd doesn't apply to the states!?!?!?!

Are they saying that the constitution only applies to the Fed Gov and not the states!?!?

The rights in the Bill of Rights only apply to the states if they have been "incorporated" by the courts under the 14th Amendment.

The "direct application" approach:
In the 1833 case Barron v. Baltimore (http://www.constitution.org/ussc/032-243a.htm), SCOTUS determined that the Bill of Rights limited the federal government and did not apply to the states.

The "privileges or immunities" approach:
The 14th Amendment was adopted in 1868 and prohibits states from abridging the "privileges or immunities" of US citizens. In the 1872 Slaughter-house (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=83&invol=36) cases, SCOTUS determined that "privileges or immunities" did not include the rights encompassed in the Bill of Rights.

The "due process" approach:
The 14th Amendment prohibits the states from depriving "any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." In a series of cases, largely during the 20th century, SCOTUS determined that specific rights in the Bill of Rights were "incorporated" under the due process protections of the 14th Amendment.

The Second Amendment has not yet been "incorporated" and does not yet apply to the states.

Borrasca
May 28, 2009, 12:50 AM
Why hasnt the second ammend. been incorperated by the states. It seems that everything should be incorperated and not just selective ones.

gc70
May 28, 2009, 01:04 AM
Why hasnt the second ammend. been incorperated by the states. It seems that everything should be incorperated and not just selective ones.

Before the Heller decision, the courts held the Second Amendment to be a "collective right" that applied to state militias (14A protects persons, not states). Only after the Heller decision declared that the Second Amendment guaranteed an individual right could the 14th Amendment be used to protect that individual right against state encroachment.

Give the system a little time to work. Several cases, such as the Chicago case, raising the incorporation issue were filed on the day the Heller decision was released or within a day or two thereafter. The Ninth Circuit has already ruled in favor of incorporation in Nordyke and it is only a matter of time before SCOTUS takes a 2A incorporation case to resolve the split between circuits on the issue.

alloy
May 28, 2009, 05:24 AM
This/She is the same, from the President.

Her book The International Judge fits with Koh and the rest of the peaceful european world utopia big thinkers. America seems temporarily in the hands of the Workers Party, Union Party, Labor Party, People's Party...whatever name you want...and the gun policies are understood. She should fit in. Political poison for congress to enact firearms or legislation? Then there has to be another way. Oh well...hopefully no one is surprised. 2a rights will eventually be superceded by only paying attention to clear-cut 2a issues.

“For instance, a national constitution might enshrine international law, including international decisions, as the supreme law of the land, superior to the constitution itself; in such circumstances, national judges are obliged to recognize the jurisprudence of international bodies.”

divemedic
May 28, 2009, 05:58 AM
What's more, she's taking the bench at a point when Ricci may be heard before the court. That places her in an...interesting position, since she ruled on it in the 2nd Circuit.

I believe that in such an event, the Justice recuses themselves from the hearing case.

publius42
May 28, 2009, 06:18 AM
Why hasnt the second ammend. been incorperated by the states. It seems that everything should be incorperated and not just selective ones.

The idea is that citizens of the United States and citizens of a State in the Union are not one and the same, and each "flavor" of citizenship carries certain rights.

Slaughterhouse Cases (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0083_0036_ZO.html)

Cruikshank (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=92&invol=542)

Presser (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=116&invol=252)

But a conclusive answer to the contention that this amendment prohibits the legislation in question lies in the fact that the amendment is a limitation only upon the power of congress and the national government, and not upon that of the state.

That has never been overturned, and it is the Supreme Court that should do the overturning of their own ruling. Appeals Court judges should not overturn the Supreme Court. She was right to observe that the precedent exists and is controlling until the SC says otherwise, and they have not. Yet.

publius42
May 28, 2009, 06:25 AM
I believe that in such an event, the Justice recuses themselves from the hearing case.

They heard the case last month and will decide it before the Senate finishes talking about her. Talk I have heard says the decision will be reversed, which will be embarrassing for her and Obama, but it is a non-issue as far as her potential conflict of interest. Even if the case were not decided before she arrived, she would recuse herself.

BlueTrain
May 28, 2009, 07:16 AM
If the Family Research Council is against her, then I'm for her. But nobody has asked me.

Bartholomew Roberts
May 28, 2009, 07:24 AM
That has never been overturned, and it is the Supreme Court that should do the overturning of their own ruling. Appeals Court judges should not overturn the Supreme Court. She was right to observe that the precedent exists and is controlling until the SC says otherwise, and they have not.

I disagree. The ruling in question was made prior to the doctrine of selective incorporation through due process. As a result, there are two roads of "precedent" that can be followed to apply the Second Amendment to the States.

One is via the privileges and immunities clause - the Supreme Court has effectively said no to this in Presser, although it is a decision right up there with Dred Scott for bad decisions enshrining racism in our government. To the extent, Sotomayor relied on this precedent, she is correct that it is up to the Supreme Court to correct its own errors.

The second route is selective incorporation through due process - and the Supreme Court has not said anything as this relates to the Second. In fact, if you look at the ways it has been applied to the other amendments, the arguments that it applies to the Second are overwhelmningly compelling (which is why even the liberal 9th Circuit reached that conclusion).

Sotomayor was completely within the realm of her responsibilities to address the issue of selective incorporation through due process in this opinion and chose not to do so. Admittedly, the lawyer in Maloney just barely touched on the subject and in that light, you can make a fair argument that Sotomayor shouldn't be suggesting or ruling on arguments that the other side can't think up on its own - and if Sotomayor had adhered to that in her other decisions, then I would grudgingly concede the point; but she seems more willing to stray from that line when plaintiffs she agrees with come before the court.

gc70 mentioned in the other thread that he considered addressing questions not before the Court as a form of judicial activism and cited how SCOTUS did not address the issue in Heller even though they recognized it (much like the Second Circuit's decision in Maloney).

To me the difference is that Heller was carefully crafted to AVOID that very question. That was the whole purpose of challenging the law in the federal enclave of D.C. The lawyers in Heller recognized that it could easily become an issue the Supreme Court would address if they didn't do everything in their power to make it inapplicable in that one case.

The opposite happened in Maloney. Maloney deliberately brought up the issue of incorporation through due process in its brief to the Second (albeit in a brief and haphazard way; but they did at least throw it in there at the last minute).

Having said that, Sotomayor's decision may end up helping us more than hurting us when it goes to SCOTUS just because of the paucity of scholarship or legal support in the decision.

gc70
May 28, 2009, 07:29 AM
Her book The International Judge fits with Koh and the rest of the peaceful european world utopia big thinkers.

Sotomayor did not write The International Judge (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=969035); she wrote the foreword for the book.

LouPran
May 28, 2009, 07:56 AM
There's a lot troubling about Sotomayor. Her attitude about the second amendment being a big one.

Especially combined with this attitude. - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfC99LrrM2Q

gc70
May 28, 2009, 08:40 AM
you can make a fair argument that Sotomayor shouldn't be suggesting or ruling on arguments that the other side can't think up on its own - and if Sotomayor had adhered to that in her other decisions, then I would grudgingly concede the point; but she seems more willing to stray from that line when plaintiffs she agrees with come before the court

This is one of my biggest concerns with any Supreme Court Justice. Judges should interpret the law to decide questions posed to the court and not create solutions to help the side with which they agree.

I am still reading Sotomayor's decisions, but links to source documents evidencing judicial activism would be greatly appreciated.

gc70
May 28, 2009, 08:59 AM
CNN posted an interesting article (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/05/27/source-obamas-pick-wasnt-pegged-to-scalia/) reporting that a factor in Sotomayor's selection was the potential for her to sway Kennedy's vote.

Contrary to conventional wisdom, President Obama was not looking for someone to balance the more flamboyant conservative firepower of Justice Antonin Scalia, according to one senior administration official involved in the process of picking, vetting and promoting the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor.

He was looking for someone with the ability to win over Justice Anthony Kennedy, the crucial swing vote.

Bartholomew Roberts
May 28, 2009, 09:34 AM
I am still reading Sotomayor's decisions, but links to source documents evidencing judicial activism would be greatly appreciated.

Didn't Sotomayor pretty much say as much herself in the controversial statements now making the rounds?

He was looking for someone with the ability to win over Justice Anthony Kennedy, the crucial swing vote.

Hmmm, well if Jeffrey Rosen at The New Republic (http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=45d56e6f-f497-4b19-9c63-04e10199a085) is reporting correctly (http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=6168aeb7-9869-43eb-b401-2204a0d84478), then Sotomayor is probably not that person.

Considering that TNR is a prominent liberal magazine and that both of those were made pre-nomination when Sotomayor was just on the short-list, I guess that means that either they really think she isn't qualified or that they preferred a more liberal judge than Sotomayor for the position. Either way, Rosen got roasted pretty well by his compatriots even before Sotomayor's nomination was announced.

gc70
May 28, 2009, 10:47 AM
Didn't Sotomayor pretty much say as much herself in the controversial statements now making the rounds?

I don't discout what someone says if I can see the full context in which it was said (often hard to find), but actions (written court decisions) still speak louder than words.

maestro pistolero
May 28, 2009, 11:00 AM
Why hasnt [sic] the second ammend.[sic] been incorperated [sic] by the states. It seems that everything should be incorperated [sic] and not just selective ones.

Everything you want to know about incorporation, period. CLICK HERE (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=188391)

Webleymkv
May 28, 2009, 12:39 PM
The more I hear about incorporation, the stranger it sounds. Didn't Heller strike down a D.C. law rather than a Federal one? If so, how then can it be argued that the Second Amendment applies only to the Federal Government when the Supreme Court as already struck down a local ordinance for violation of it?

Tennessee Gentleman
May 28, 2009, 12:44 PM
If so, how then can it be argued that the Second Amendment applies only to the Federal Government when the Supreme Court as already struck down a local ordinance for violation of it?

Because it was in DC and DC is not a state. Reading the cases that have come forth on incorporation makes it clear to me that the Supreme Court will have to make that call. Even if every appeals courts rules on it we need it done by the supremes.

maestro pistolero
May 28, 2009, 12:50 PM
Didn't Heller strike down a D.C. law rather than a Federal one?

That is an excellent point, and not one I have heard before. D.C. is sort of legal limbo-land. It's not a State, but neither is the city government the federal government.
However, congress seems to have jurisdiction, because at one point they threatened to eradicate the district's gun laws unless they were brought into line with the ruling on Heller.

Hmmmm, confusing.

D.C. is like a high-stakes laboratory for modeling US gun laws, as they will apply against the states, should incorporation win the day. It's a convenient little cocoon in which Gura, SAF, Halbrooke (NRA), etc. can maneuver, in anticipation of incorporation.

gc70
May 28, 2009, 01:45 PM
Didn't Heller strike down a D.C. law rather than a Federal one? If so, how then can it be argued that the Second Amendment applies only to the Federal Government when the Supreme Court as already struck down a local ordinance for violation of it?

Congress has delegated legislative authority over local matters to the D.C. government. Therefore, D.C. laws are federal in origin.

From the District of Columbia Home Rule Act (http://www.abfa.com/ogc/hract.htm):

SEC. 102. [D.C. Code 1-201] (a) Subject to the retention by Congress of the ultimate legislative authority over the nation's capital granted by article I, 8, of the Constitution, the intent of Congress is to delegate certain legislative powers to the government of the District of Columbia; authorize the election of certain local officials by the registered qualified electors in the District of Columbia; grant to the inhabitants of the District of Columbia powers of local self-government; modernize, reorganize, and otherwise improve the governmental structure of the District of Columbia; and, to the greatest extent possible, consistent with the constitutional mandate, relieve Congress of the burden of legislating upon essentially local District matters.

thallub
May 28, 2009, 07:29 PM
Yes, Sotomayor is a dedicated anti who was appointed to the federal bench by Bush I. Where were the gun rights activists at that time? I mention this because we need to oppose any nominee to the federal bench who is anti-gun. It does not matter which party the president who appoints the anti-gunner belongs to.

Glenn E. Meyer
May 28, 2009, 09:52 PM
Listening to Bush I quitting the NRA and talking about JBT?

He wasn't our big buddy.

Bartholomew Roberts
May 28, 2009, 10:01 PM
Sotomayor was appointed by Bush as part of a deal brokered with the Democrats to keep them from blocking Republican appointees. She was actually recommended by Sen. Patrick Moniyhan for the federal judge bench.

On a related note, Sotomayor was recommended for SCOTUS by Schumer and Kristen Gillibrandt - neither of whom are known for their love of the Second Amendment.

Playboypenguin
May 28, 2009, 10:23 PM
Wow, this thread title is not the least bit melodramatic or reactionary.

obxned
May 28, 2009, 10:51 PM
Anyone that person in the White House appoints will have already sworn their loyalty and devotion to the new messiah and will keep pushing our country down Barry's shining path.

MedicineBow
May 29, 2009, 01:24 AM
Wow, this thread title is not the least bit melodramatic or reactionary.

Maybe we should all think about starting to stockpile ammunition?

I've only got 120,000 rounds sprinkled around the house, so I'm nervous.

madmag
May 29, 2009, 11:37 AM
Wow, this thread title is not the least bit melodramatic or reactionary.

And that adds exactly what to the thread.:confused:

maestro pistolero
May 29, 2009, 12:21 PM
Wow, this thread title is not the least bit melodramatic or reactionary.

No, it isn't. The title of the OP's article might be a little over the top, but members here are discussing her record, her judicial history, her alarming statements on the record, her judicial temperament, and her past decisions. The discussion couldn't be more relevant, and tempered.

Calling the thread reactionary or melodramatic seems more knee-jerk to me than the posts you are attempting to characterize.

madmag
May 29, 2009, 01:35 PM
No, it isn't.

Agreed. We need to discuss Sotomayor's views on gun control. Knowing what someones opinion (good or bad) about a thread is of no real value...at least to me (mod's excluded.....their opinion counts:)).

madmag
May 29, 2009, 02:44 PM
I think there is value to resistance of Sotomayor's confirmation. This really gives us a chance to give voice to our opposition to anti-gun control nominations. We know that the Dem's from many western states do support the 2A rights, so this is not just a solid block of liberals voting to install an anti-gun rights justice.

If we just roll over and say this is just another liberal replacing another liberal, then it will make it easier for Obama to make more moves against gun rights.

maestro pistolero
May 29, 2009, 03:01 PM
Dear Senator,

I am writing to convey a deep concern about the nomination of Judge Sotomayor for Supreme Court Justice. This nominee's long-held position that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual right to firearms ownership is as absurd as it is well-known. She has said publicly that there is no fundamental right to own a gun. This is completely at odds with the United States Supreme Court's recent Heller vs D.C. decision. Even the dissenting justices in Heller acknowledged that 2A protects an individual right to self defense, not necessarily connected to militia service.

With critical '2A' cases hanging in the balance over the next few terms of the SCOTUS, including the fundamental question of whether the 2nd Amendment is incorporated against the States, confirming Sotomayor spells disaster for the Second Amendment rights that you have helped to protect for many years.

I am writing to urge you to do everything in your power to block this nomination, so that a suitable nominee, grounded in the original intent of the founders may be brought forth.

Sincerely,

Permission to copy and use in part or in whole hereby granted. You may want to delete this if your representative is anti-gun: that you have helped to protect for many years.

alan93
May 29, 2009, 03:08 PM
More on the Pressor v Illinois which Sotomayor has cited in recent New York case banning nunchakas.

It's a typical anti-gun lobby bird dog ruling but there's more to it than that.

http://www.davekopel.com/2A/Mags/Presser-versus-Illinois.htm

USAFNoDak
May 29, 2009, 03:36 PM
Wouldn't it be nice to see the GOP Senators go after her big time on gun rights? That would not have anything to do with her being of any certain race or of any particular gender. They could really hit her hard and use Heller as their brickbats. As a matter of fact, they should clearly bring up the fact that gun control laws were first implemented as a means to control freed blacks in southern states. How does her being of a racial minority affect her thinking with that fact in mind? How does her belief that the second ammendment does not protect an individual right square with the Heller decision, where even the dissenters acknowledged the individual right to self defense? She has a lot to answer for and it would not require any encroachments on her gender or race. Liberals probably understand her weaknesses and this is why they are warning the GOP to tread lightly on attacking a latin woman. That's the scare tactic. If you go after her, we will point out how you are being anti hispanic and anti woman. If the GOP Senators fall for those horse apples, they deserve to lose even more seats in the next go-round.

USAFNoDak
May 29, 2009, 04:06 PM
I find it very interesting when I look at how democrats got control of the congress and the white house. First of all, they had to find some pro second amendment democrats to run in rural and southern states to win seats in those states. They bit the bullet (pun intended) and won those seats, giving them a majority.

Obama had to soften his anti gun stance so much as to finally come out and say that he supported an individual right to keep and bear arms. His words and actions in his past were 180 degrees out of phase with that stance. To get elected, he had to move towards a pro gun rights position, whether he's being 100% honest about that or not.

However, for his first USSC nominee, he nominates a woman who doesn't believe there is a fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms. This may be the one big issue that she gets grilled on, and rightly so. It would be so ironic if that issue caused her to fail. What are pro gun rights Senators from Red and rural states going to do about voting for her once her record on the Second Ammendment is exposed and highlighted during the hearings? Will they suck it up and follow suit with Obama and nominate her anyway? This could be interesting to watch as the political game gets underway. The Second Ammendment issue carries no danger as to being labeled a racist or woman hater if they go after her on it. As a matter of fact, gun control laws were first passed with an intention to keep freed blacks unarmed in the south, post civil war. This has some interesting dynamics involved and could be worth a tub of popcorn to watch.

maestro pistolero
May 29, 2009, 04:38 PM
They would love for us to believe her confirmation is a foregone conclusion. If we prevent it, it will send a huge message that the tide has turned on the public's tolerance for infringement.

She is on one hand, experienced and credentialed. On the other, an unapologetic, unrepentant, agenda wielding judicial activist, who (as in the case of the NYC fireman denied promotion based on race) doesn't even bother to contrive a plausible judicial basis for a ruling.

rampage841512
May 30, 2009, 12:35 AM
All her appointment would do is maintain the status quo. That's not exactly a bad thing at the moment. President Obama is losing a pawn and gaining a pawn (speaking in chess terms).

It would be nice to gain a more 2nd amendment friendly justice on the court, but that's not going to happen. Frankly, I think her other opinions are more alarming than her 2nd amendment opinions.

What do we gain with her appointment, as far as the second amendment goes? Nothing.

What do we lose? Nothing.

The Republican Party is not going to be able to stop her appointment any more that the Democrats were able to stop President Bush's two appointments to the SCOTUS.

The entire process will be nothing more than political grandstanding by both parties without anything really being gained or lost.

Our energy, in my opinion, should be focused on pushing legislation that expands our rights and fighting that which seeks to limit them rather than burning ourselves out in a fight that we probably can't win, and don't really need to win.

If, later down the road, we stand to lose a justice that is friendly to our view then we should dig in for a long fight because that is when it will really matter.

Bartholomew Roberts
May 30, 2009, 08:07 AM
If, later down the road, we stand to lose a justice that is friendly to our view then we should dig in for a long fight because that is when it will really matter.

If we wait until an anti is nominated to replace a pro-Second Heller vote, we will already be behind the power curve when that fight comes.

Sotomayor offers an excellent opportunity to make the Democrats in the Senate who claim to be pro-Second Amendment demonstrate which is more important to them: the Bill of Rights or their party affiliation. Personally, that is information I want to know before we go into mid-term elections in 2010.

Second, Sotomayor cannot be nominated without those pro-gun Democrats. Even in the event they decide their loyalties lie more to the party, they may be able to bring pressure on the Administration to make concessions to the NRA (like remaining neutral on legislation or regulations) in return for the NRA not counting the nomination vote against them. The louder the noise is on this issue, the more they have to look to the NRA or similar organizations in order to build their credentials back up for midterms.

Finally, the harder we make them work to replace an anti-Second Justice on the Supreme Court, the less likely they are to want that fight again in the future.

In terms of the battle analogy you used, Sotomayor is the first in a line of trenches. We don't fire one shot as soon as we see the enemy and retreat to our last line of defense (replacing pro-2nd Justice with anti), we make them fight desperately for every single trench and we only give it up when we can't hold it anymore. Chances are real good we will have to let them have this trench; but we still have the opportunity to make it costly for them.

maestro pistolero
May 30, 2009, 10:32 AM
Excellent, BR, agreed. This is an opportunity to cement the lessons of gun control for politicians and the judiciary who dare take it up. If we sit back and tacitly allow her confirmation, we are missing an opportunity to continue setting a new course. Even if we were to be unsuccessful in opposing it, it still an opportunity to make our voices heard loud and clear.

We should not underestimate the determination and hubris of our Democratic allies, who showed us a lot with their letter to Holder regarding any new gun ban. This nomination NOT a foregone conclusion, unless we say it is.

rampage841512
May 30, 2009, 10:52 AM
If I'm wrong about what I've said, I'll eat my words. Until then, I stick by it.

madmag
May 30, 2009, 11:46 AM
If we wait until an anti is nominated to replace a pro-Second Heller vote, we will already be behind the power curve when that fight comes.

Agreed. That's the major point. If we just say this is a done deal and wait for another day, then we lose our opportunity to let Obama know it will always be a fight when it comes to 2A rights. Whether they be Conservative or liberal, we need to flush out the 2A supporters now. We need to know where our non-supporters stand so we can do battle in the future.

Yes, small chance in stopping her nomination, but we will never know unless we try.

Winterhawk56
May 31, 2009, 01:04 PM
Sotomayor is another right wing liberal! Suitor is right wing but not as bad as she! There is little you can say about this other than its another BAD RIGHT WING agenda from Obama and with this less that stellar person (Sotomayor) Obama will push his agenda! We need more than ever to stand up for our rights. I really do not think our founding fathers had this in mind when we began this GREAT NATION!
Make no mistake, this is the push the Democrats like Boxer, Feinstein and Schumer are waiting for not to mention Polocy! Being retire Military I am ashamed of what we are doing in the Government. One of the Primary reasons I retired 13 years ago was I no longer supported President Clinton. I was ashamed of him and when the military had to threaten active duty personnel with court martial for the rampant jokes (About CLinton) it was time to go! I made E-8 but chose to retired and not accept the next rank because of what we (military) had to tolerate from Clinton! Now we have Obama! He is the worst kind of Democrat! Liberal as they come, the only difference is "Like Adolf Hitler" he is a great speaker but hides his agenda, Hitler made no bones about his agenda!
If we as a people do not stand up for what is right to include our Constitution, We will be and possibly are in serious trouble! SotoMayor has been overruled in 10 of her 14 opinions! What do you expect from her if she is part of the Nations Highest Court!
Finally...What do you think Obama or Sotomayor want to do with our gun rights!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

gc70
May 31, 2009, 01:21 PM
another right wing liberal

Uhhh... I think right wing liberals are pretty rare.

madmag
May 31, 2009, 06:09 PM
Uhhh... I think right wing liberals are pretty rare.

Years ago....OK many years ago, I was out hunting and I took a shot at a right wing liberal. Those things are harder to hit than a rabbit running through a Briar patch! Not bad eating if you stew them 8 hrs or more to get the wild taste out.

Tom Servo
May 31, 2009, 06:46 PM
Wow, this thread title is not the least bit melodramatic or reactionary.
How about, "Space Lizard disguised as Obama Declares War on America's Gun Owners with Supreme Court Pick Who Likes to Kick Puppies?"
Sotomayor cannot be nominated without those pro-gun Democrats. Even in the event they decide their loyalties lie more to the party, they may be able to bring pressure on the Administration to make concessions to the NRA
I think there's something here, and I hope you're right.

Of course, many things are up in the air. I don't like most of what I've heard about Sotomayor or her record, but we don't know how much initiative she'll take. This promises to be a bitter confirmation fight, and if nominated, she may not want to make any waves for awhile. Souter himself turned out differently than expected.

She might accept (or find herself forced to accept) a more rational view of the 2A than she previously has. Heck, if Maloney makes it to SCOTUS, she'll have to recluse herself anyhow.

Glenn E. Meyer
May 31, 2009, 07:45 PM
After a hard two days being a crew member in the 2nd Annual Multiclub Regional IDPA match in San Antonio - I return for a big Failure to Do Right!

Hitler! - what the oops!

I said we were to talk about her views on L and CR issues and not do the good ol' l ranting.

I appreciate some of the commentary - Bart, Maestro and Rampage - good comments.

But we are closed - can't recover from a Godwin penalty and the crucial points have been made. I did give it a second chance.

Glenn