Performance Boats Forum banner

1 - 13 of 13 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
991 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
WOW is all I can say about her logic...clearly anti-gun....

Sotomayor Ruled That States Do Not Have to Obey Second Amendment
Thursday, May 28, 2009
By Matt Cover

(CNSNews.com) – Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor ruled in January 2009 that states do not have to obey the Second Amendment’s commandment that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

In Maloney v. Cuomo, Sotomayor signed an opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that said the Second Amendment does not protect individuals from having their right to keep and bear arms restricted by state governments.

The opinion said that the Second Amendment only restricted the federal government from infringing on an individual's right to keep and bear arms. As justification for this position, the opinion cited the 1886 Supreme Court case of Presser v. Illinois.

“It is settled law, however, that the Second Amendment applies only to limitations the federal government seeks to impose on this right,” said the opinion. Quoting Presser, the court said, “it is a limitation only upon the power of Congress and the national government, and not upon that of the state.”

The Maloney v. Cuomo case involved James Maloney, who had been arrested for possessing a pair of nunchuks. New York law prohibits the possession of nunchuks, even though they are often used in martial arts training and demonstrations.

The meaning of the Second Amendment has rarely been addressed by the Supreme Court. But in the 2008 case of Heller v. District of Columbia, the high court said that the right to keep and bear arms was a natural right of all Americans and that the Second Amendment guaranteed that right to everyone.

The Second Amendment, the Supreme Court ruled, “guarantee(s) the right of the individual to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it ‘shall not be infringed.’”

“There seems to us no doubt,” the Supreme Court said, “that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms.”

Sotomayor, however, said that even though the Heller decision held that the right to keep and bear arms was a natural right--and therefore could not be justly denied to a law-abiding citizen by any government, federal, state or local--the Second Circuit was still bound by the 1886 case, because Heller only dealt indirectly with the issue before her court.

“And to the extent that Heller might be read to question the continuing validity of this principle, we must follow Presser because where, as here, a Supreme Court precedent has direct application in a case, yet appears to rest on reasons rejected in some other line of decisions, the Court of Appeals should follow the case which [it] directly controls.”

In its 2008 case, the Supreme Court’s took a different view of its own 1886 case, saying that Presser had no bearing on anything beyond a state’s ability to outlaw private militia groups.

“Presser said nothing about the Second Amendment’s meaning or scope, beyond the fact that it does not prevent the prohibition of private paramilitary organizations,” the court ruled. “This does not refute the individual-rights interpretation of the Amendment.”

The Second Amendment is the only part of the Bill of Rights that the Supreme Court has not specifically extended to the states through a process known as incorporation, which involves interpreting the Fourteenth Amendment to read that no state can deprive its citizens of federally guaranteed rights.

The Fourteenth Amendment reads, in part: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States … nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Sotomayor’s decision rejected the Fourteenth Amendment’s incorporation doctrine as far as Second Amendment was concerned, saying any legislation that could provide a “conceivable” reason would be upheld by her court.

“We will uphold legislation if we can identify some reasonably conceived state of facts that could provide a rational basis for the legislative action. Legislative acts that do not interfere with fundamental rights … carry with them a strong presumption of constitutionality,” the appeals court concluded. “The Fourteenth Amendment,” she wrote, “provides no relief.”

Sotomayor’s ruling ran to the left of even the reliably liberal San Francisco-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which ruled in the April 2009 case Nordyke v. King that the Second Amendment did, in fact, apply to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment, heavily citing the Supreme Court in Heller.

“We therefore conclude that the right to keep and bear arms is deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition,” said the Ninth Circuit court of Appeals. “We are therefore persuaded that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment and applies it against the states and local governments.”

Gun Week Senior Editor Dave Workman told CNSNews.com that the Nordyke and Maloney decisions are at odds and the Supreme Court, possibly with a Justice Sotomayor, may soon sort them out.

“Whenever you have a conflict like this, you’re likely to have it end up before the Supreme Court so they can decide the issue. If the Second Amendment is incorporated into the states, it’s going to jeopardize thousands of local gun laws, and the people who supported those gun laws are just freaked about that.”
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,616 Posts
A Democrat picked judge that is hostile to gun owners rights??:))eek:)) How can that be??:))eek:))
Any gun owner who would vote for a Dem, in this era, for any major office, is far to clueless to ever be trusted with a gun.
 

·
E-7 Sheepdog (ret)
Joined
·
6,834 Posts
She's capable of much better decisions, by virtue of being hispanic (caucasian) and female, than a white (Caucasian) male is.

Just ask her, she said she is.

That's why she sees things so much more "clearly". ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,616 Posts
She's capable of much better decisions, by virtue of being hispanic (caucasian) and female, than a white (Caucasian) male is.

Just ask her, she said she is.

That's why she sees things so much more "clearly". ;)
Exactly. I don't know which she is more ate up in the a$$ over, her ethnicity or her own greatness...:)sphss:)sphss:)sphss:)sphss
 

·
"The" masheenist
Joined
·
5,444 Posts
Exactly. I don't know which she is more ate up in the a$$ over, her ethnicity or her own greatness...:)sphss:)sphss:)sphss:)sphss
Seems that her and an Ultimatecompletefag's president have a few things in common.

Brian
 

·
"On the road again..."
Joined
·
9,356 Posts
I suppose a 'lil Puerto Rican girl from the Bronx projects has completely better insight into firearms that an 'ol white man that grew up in rural farm/ranch country where loaded weapons were kept safely within reach and used to repel varmints and put meat on the table. It very well could be a moral issue as to the views of how weapons fit into different portions of society and how those morals effected how the weapons were used.

The 'ol white man typically came from a respectful portion of society where education in moral principles and value to human life dictated how loaded firearms could be safely kept in plain sight as opposed to a 'lil Pueto Rican girl who likely saw rampant crime, hate, and disrespect for others' possesions with her "brothers" feigning false Christian morality through the wearing of St Christopher medals and Holy Cross tatoos for the benefit of their grandmothers.......:)hand
 

·
Don't Taze Me, Bro!
Joined
·
1,885 Posts
Let me see if I've got this right.

The 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution only applies to laws passed by the Federal Government and that States can pass laws that take away our unalienable rights.

But the First Amendment, specifically the part about making no laws establishing a national religion nor restricting the free practice of the same, is applied to local School Boards.

But it really doesn't surprise me one bit with this chick. She authored a decision to shut down a high school student's blog because it was critical of the school's administration.

I wonder if any of these liberal puke judges have ever even read the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, it's Preamble, or any of its Amendments?

It's like they don't know or care what they say. They'll just make it up on the fly.
 

·
Cross Member
Joined
·
104 Posts
We're F'd. No matter all here problem areas that are brought up she will be confirmed because no one wants to look like they were holding down the "minority".
The white house commented that the reason Barry chose her is that she has the same views as he does on all things government.
This is only the first to come.
We are just F'd.
 

·
Living in a cage of fear
Joined
·
16,462 Posts
I suppose a 'lil Puerto Rican girl from the Bronx projects has completely better insight into firearms that an 'ol white man that grew up in rural farm/ranch country where loaded weapons were kept safely within reach and used to repel varmints and put meat on the table. It very well could be a moral issue as to the views of how weapons fit into different portions of society and how those morals effected how the weapons were used.

The 'ol white man typically came from a respectful portion of society where education in moral principles and value to human life dictated how loaded firearms could be safely kept in plain sight as opposed to a 'lil Pueto Rican girl who likely saw rampant crime, hate, and disrespect for others' possesions with her "brothers" feigning false Christian morality through the wearing of St Christopher medals and Holy Cross tatoos for the benefit of their grandmothers.......:)hand
Clearly Tex, your' view is clouded by being an old white guy raised on principle and values in a rural, American setting.

Get to the Bronx, smoke some crack, do some pimpin' and get schooled up on todays REAL Americans'. Inner city minority issues and rights far outweigh those of us who respect and value our Constitution and way of life.

Get with it Tex, you are living in "The West United States of Europe".:|err:|err
 

·
"On the road again..."
Joined
·
9,356 Posts
Clearly Tex, your' view is clouded by being an old white guy raised on principle and values in a rural, American setting.

Get to the Bronx, smoke some crack, do some pimpin' and get schooled up on todays REAL Americans'. Inner city minority issues and rights far outweigh those of us who respect and value our Constitution and way of life.

Get with it Tex, you are living in "The West United States of Europe".:|err:|err
Over in Grey Water and the Racial thread, Ultra says she ain't racial at all and he's apparently pleased as pie that she will likely be confired, says it's a fact.......Poor fool started this whole thing voting for an idiot that in turn picks idiots.

Yale grads.....We'd be better served by 9th grade drop outs that started businesses and earned their way through life.

Common sense and a grasp of economic reality apparently don't come with a Yale law degree.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,616 Posts
I wonder if any of these liberal puke judges have ever even read the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, it's Preamble, or any of its Amendments?

It's like they don't know or care what they say. They'll just make it up on the fly.
They read them to look for loopholes. When they didn't find any, they declared that the Constitution was "a living breathing document", that they could choose to interprete any way they want...:)sphss
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,449 Posts
Well, another appointment in line with all the other wackos in this screwed up adminsration. BO just can't help himself. Sotomayor is another Constitution revisionist, who seems to think she knows more than the Founders. We are being manipulated again, and with ever increasing speed. Hell, the only good news is that somebody took out "Tiller the baby Killer'
 
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
Top