The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old May 28, 2009, 10:47 AM   #26
gc70
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,492
Quote:
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.
gc70 is offline  
Old May 28, 2009, 11:00 AM   #27
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,092
Quote:
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
maestro pistolero is offline  
Old May 28, 2009, 12:39 PM   #28
Webleymkv
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 9,939
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?
__________________
Smith, and Wesson, and Me. -H. Callahan
Well waddaya know, one buwwet weft! -E. Fudd
All bad precedents begin as justifiable measures. -J. Caesar
Webleymkv is offline  
Old May 28, 2009, 12:44 PM   #29
Tennessee Gentleman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,611
Quote:
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.
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted."
Anonymous Soldier.
Tennessee Gentleman is offline  
Old May 28, 2009, 12:50 PM   #30
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,092
Quote:
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.

Last edited by maestro pistolero; May 28, 2009 at 12:56 PM.
maestro pistolero is offline  
Old May 28, 2009, 01:45 PM   #31
gc70
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,492
Quote:
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:

Quote:
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.
gc70 is offline  
Old May 28, 2009, 07:29 PM   #32
thallub
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 2,121
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.
thallub is offline  
Old May 28, 2009, 09:52 PM   #33
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,803
Listening to Bush I quitting the NRA and talking about JBT?

He wasn't our big buddy.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old May 28, 2009, 10:01 PM   #34
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,718
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.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old May 28, 2009, 10:23 PM   #35
Playboypenguin
Junior member
 
Join Date: February 27, 2006
Location: Great Pacific Northwest
Posts: 11,515
Wow, this thread title is not the least bit melodramatic or reactionary.
Playboypenguin is offline  
Old May 28, 2009, 10:51 PM   #36
obxned
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 30, 2007
Location: OBX, NC
Posts: 1,128
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.
__________________
“If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth.” Ronald Reagan

I'm a proud member of a North Carolina Committee of Safety
obxned is offline  
Old May 29, 2009, 01:24 AM   #37
MedicineBow
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 15, 2008
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 297
Quote:
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.
__________________
Dulce bellum inexpertis
MedicineBow is offline  
Old May 29, 2009, 11:37 AM   #38
madmag
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 7, 2007
Location: The South
Posts: 4,239
Quote:
Wow, this thread title is not the least bit melodramatic or reactionary.
And that adds exactly what to the thread.
madmag is offline  
Old May 29, 2009, 12:21 PM   #39
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,092
Quote:
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.
maestro pistolero is offline  
Old May 29, 2009, 01:35 PM   #40
madmag
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 7, 2007
Location: The South
Posts: 4,239
Quote:
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).

Last edited by madmag; May 29, 2009 at 01:46 PM.
madmag is offline  
Old May 29, 2009, 02:44 PM   #41
madmag
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 7, 2007
Location: The South
Posts: 4,239
Imagine if we did not resist.

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.
madmag is offline  
Old May 29, 2009, 03:01 PM   #42
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,092
Just sent this to Sen. Harry Reid, NV

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.

Last edited by maestro pistolero; May 29, 2009 at 03:14 PM.
maestro pistolero is offline  
Old May 29, 2009, 03:08 PM   #43
alan93
Junior Member
 
Join Date: April 15, 2009
Posts: 6
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/Pre...s-Illinois.htm
alan93 is offline  
Old May 29, 2009, 03:36 PM   #44
USAFNoDak
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 21, 2000
Location: Minnesota, Twin Cities
Posts: 1,043
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.
__________________
"If you love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." Samuel Adams.
USAFNoDak is offline  
Old May 29, 2009, 04:06 PM   #45
USAFNoDak
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 21, 2000
Location: Minnesota, Twin Cities
Posts: 1,043
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.
__________________
"If you love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." Samuel Adams.

Last edited by USAFNoDak; May 29, 2009 at 04:13 PM.
USAFNoDak is offline  
Old May 29, 2009, 04:38 PM   #46
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,092
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.
maestro pistolero is offline  
Old May 30, 2009, 12:35 AM   #47
rampage841512
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 16, 2007
Location: Gardendale, Alabama
Posts: 665
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.
__________________
"What is play to the fool and the idiot is deadly serious to the man with the gun."
Walt Rauch,Combat Handguns, May '08
rampage841512 is offline  
Old May 30, 2009, 08:07 AM   #48
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,718
Quote:
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.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old May 30, 2009, 10:32 AM   #49
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,092
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.
maestro pistolero is offline  
Old May 30, 2009, 10:52 AM   #50
rampage841512
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 16, 2007
Location: Gardendale, Alabama
Posts: 665
If I'm wrong about what I've said, I'll eat my words. Until then, I stick by it.
__________________
"What is play to the fool and the idiot is deadly serious to the man with the gun."
Walt Rauch,Combat Handguns, May '08
rampage841512 is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:42 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.14917 seconds with 7 queries