Sotomayor being grilled on 2A

This is a discussion on Sotomayor being grilled on 2A within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; TheHill.com - NRA growing more alarmed over Sotomayor NRA growing more alarmed over Sotomayor By Alexander Bolton Posted: 07/15/09 01:06 PM [ET] The National Rifle ...

Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst ... 2345678 LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 109

Thread: Sotomayor being grilled on 2A

  1. #76
    VIP Member Array Patti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    The Show Me State
    Posts
    2,642

    NRA growing more alarmed over Sotomayor

    TheHill.com - NRA growing more alarmed over Sotomayor


    NRA growing more alarmed over Sotomayor

    By Alexander Bolton
    Posted: 07/15/09 01:06 PM [ET]
    The National Rifle Association (NRA) has questioned Sonia Sotomayor’s fitness to serve on the Supreme Court, a troubling sign for the nominee in what has so far been a smooth confirmation hearing.

    The NRA is considered one of the most powerful lobbies in Washington and holds sway with Democrats from conservative states, who could side with Republicans in opposing the nominee.

    Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the NRA, blasted Sotomayor for ruling that the Second Amendment’s protection of gun rights does not apply to state and local governments and for being “evasive” when asked about whether gun ownership is a fundamental right.

    “As the Senate considers the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor, Americans are watching to see if this nominee would lend her support to those who’ve declared war on the rights of America’s 80 million gun owners,” LaPierra wrote in a statement posted on the group’s website Wednesday. “After the first day of confirmation hearings, gun owners have good reason to worry.”

    Sen. Jeff Sessions (Ala.), the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, referred to the NRA's statement during Wednesday's question-and-answer session.

    Sotomayor ruled in Maloney v. Cuomo (aka Maloney v. Rice) that the Second Amendment only applies to federal law. In U.S. v. Sanchez-Villar, Sotomayor concluded that the right to possess a gun is not fundamental.

    Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn (R) repeatedly asked Sotomayor whether she believed citizens have a right to defend themselves, a line of inquiry the nominee dodged.

    “I don’t know if that legal question has ever been presented,” Sotomayor said.


    Coburn kept pressing: “I wasn’t asking about the legal question, I’m asking about your personal opinion.”

    Sotomayor: “That is sort of an abstract question with no particular meaning to me outside —"

    Cornyn grew impatient, cutting her off: “I think that’s what American people want to hear, Your Honor.”

    On Tuesday, Sotomayor declined to answer a question from Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) challenging her ruling that gun ownership is not a fundamental right.

    “[What] you wrote leaves the impression that unless the right to bear arms is considered fundamental, any gun restriction is necessarily permissible under the Second Amendment,” Hatch said. “Is that what you believe?”

    Sotomayor answered: “I'm not taking an opinion on that issue, because it's an open question.”


    The NRA raised concerns about Sotomayor before the hearing.

    On July 7, Chris Cox, the executive director of the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action, wrote a letter to Senate leaders raising concerns over Sotomayor.

    “Out of respect for the confirmation process, the NRA has not announced an official position on Judge Sotomayor's confirmation. However, should her answers regarding the Second Amendment at the upcoming hearings be hostile or evasive, we will have no choice but to oppose her nomination to the Court,” Cox warned.
    Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy. — Winston Churchill

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #77
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,632

    to imatt

    Quote Originally Posted by imatt View Post
    Since when is incorporating the 2A considered activist? .
    Only by certain posters here. That isn't my position.

    I was tweaking at the folks here who claim they are for gun owners rights but don't want 2A to apply.

  4. #78
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by imatt View Post
    Since when is incorporating the 2A considered activist?
    Since there is no legal precedent to the nonsensical doctrine of 'incorporation' it is judicial activism to overrule the Constitution and the many Court precedents that adhere to the state sovereignty delineated specifically in the Constitution. I suggest you review Marshalls' opinion in Barron v. Baltimore. Of course, many find actually learning our history might dent their preconceived notions.

    I do believe that the 2A is VERY specific in that "shall not be infringed" would mean that nobody can overrule. There's your incorporation argument right there - in the wording.
    Yes, I'm sure you do because you ignore the words 'Congress shall make no law.'

  5. #79
    VIP Member Array zacii's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    arizona
    Posts
    3,749
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post


    Yes, I'm sure you do because you ignore the words 'Congress shall make no law.'
    I'm confused. Didn't you just agree with imatt? 'shall make no law', 'shall not be infringed'?
    Trust in God and keep your powder dry

    "A heavily armed citizenry is not about overthrowing the government; it is about preventing the government from overthrowing liberty. A people stripped of their right of self defense is defenseless against their own government." -source

  6. #80
    Member Array Faitmaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Dayton, Ohio
    Posts
    358
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    Yes, I'm sure you do because you ignore the words 'Congress shall make no law.'
    While I could see how one could say that could mean state Congress as well, I don't believe it does.

    I do have to agree with you on this one SD. The BoR does not apply to the states despite what the Supreme Court rules, which also means I have to apologize to you for another thread. I'm not sure what I was thinking when I called you out in the National Reprocity thread regarding Supreme Court opinions. My apologies.

    And I leave you with a quote from Abraham Lincoln.

    If the policy of the government, upon vital questions affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court...the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned the government into the hands of that eminent tribunal. (Lincoln's First Inaugural Address, 1861).
    "The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." - Ayn Rand

    NRA Member / Ohio Conceal Carry Instructor
    CHL Holder

  7. #81
    Member Array Faitmaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Dayton, Ohio
    Posts
    358
    Quote Originally Posted by zacii View Post
    I'm confused. Didn't you just agree with imatt? 'shall make no law', 'shall not be infringed'?
    No. SD commented that CONGRESS shall make no law, where imatt said "shall not be infringed" means that nobody can overrule, which of course, he's wrong.

    States, and the people in it, have the power to determine their own fate and path. The BoR applies only to the Federal Government.
    "The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." - Ayn Rand

    NRA Member / Ohio Conceal Carry Instructor
    CHL Holder

  8. #82
    VIP Member Array zacii's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    arizona
    Posts
    3,749
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    Since there is no legal precedent to the nonsensical doctrine of 'incorporation' it is judicial activism to overrule the Constitution and the many Court precedents that adhere to the state sovereignty delineated specifically in the Constitution. I suggest you review Marshalls' opinion in Barron v. Baltimore. Of course, many find actually learning our history might dent their preconceived notions.



    Yes, I'm sure you do because you ignore the words 'Congress shall make no law.'
    Quote Originally Posted by Faitmaker View Post
    No. SD commented that CONGRESS shall make no law, where imatt said "shall not be infringed" means that nobody can overrule, which of course, he's wrong.

    States, and the people in it, have the power to determine their own fate and path. The BoR applies only to the Federal Government.
    So, what you're saying is that the BOR is only a specific limitation on the federal government and that the states can do what ever they want, in spite of the BOR?
    Trust in God and keep your powder dry

    "A heavily armed citizenry is not about overthrowing the government; it is about preventing the government from overthrowing liberty. A people stripped of their right of self defense is defenseless against their own government." -source

  9. #83
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by zacii View Post
    So, what you're saying is that the BOR is only a specific limitation on the federal government and that the states can do what ever they want, in spite of the BOR?
    Yes, the people and their respective states can determine their own laws. That is the idea of sovereign states in a United States of America.

    The Bill of Rights was ratified for the sole purpose so the Federal government could not infringe on the rights of the people and the states.

  10. #84
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,632

    That is precisely what he is saying

    Quote Originally Posted by zacii View Post
    So, what you're saying is that the BOR is only a specific limitation on the federal government and that the states can do what ever they want, in spite of the BOR?
    That is precisely what he is saying, notwithstanding all manner of rulings to the contrary and also notwithstanding that he chooses to completely ignore the meaning and intent of the 14th amendment. But heck, the opinions are coming from a guy who thinks judges can't lawfully judge, and that the supreme court takes cases for which it has no lawful jurisdiction.

    What is really interesting about the position is that it is exactly the argument that an anti-gun rights activist would use. Just look at how much criticism Sotomayor got (from pro-gun conservatives) for holding that 2A isn't binding on the states. ANd contrast that with the correct position held by a different circuit court.

    Now the supremes will have to sort it out. What we will see is an upside down world in which the pro-gun conservatives will be forced to uphold their hated 14th amendment while the liberal justices who are so often accused of activism will be forced to fall back on antiquated 19th century rulings designed to promote Jim Crow laws.

  11. #85
    Member Array Randy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Staunton, Va.
    Posts
    307
    Quote Originally Posted by zacii View Post
    So, what you're saying is that the BOR is only a specific limitation on the federal government and that the states can do what ever they want, in spite of the BOR?
    The original intent of the BoR was to restrict the Federal Government. It had absolutely nothing to do with restricting the state governments.

    Randy

  12. #86
    VIP Member Array zacii's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    arizona
    Posts
    3,749
    So, theoretically, a state could legalize slavery, against the BOR? And the federal gov't would have no say?
    Trust in God and keep your powder dry

    "A heavily armed citizenry is not about overthrowing the government; it is about preventing the government from overthrowing liberty. A people stripped of their right of self defense is defenseless against their own government." -source

  13. #87
    Member Array Monkeytown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    217
    Quote Originally Posted by zacii View Post
    So, theoretically, a state could legalize slavery, against the BOR? And the federal gov't would have no say?
    Slavery was not addressed in the BoR. This is obvious b/c the Civil Wars was (supposedly) fought to free the slaves 70+ years after it's ratification.

    BTW SD we might have a few State's rights guys here with us.
    "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." Benjamin Franklin

    Steps in the stripping of State's Rights/Sovereignty
    1. War of Northern Agression 2. Coersion to ratify the 14th Amendment 3. Ratified 17th Amendment

  14. #88
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by zacii View Post
    So, theoretically, a state could legalize slavery, against the BOR? And the federal gov't would have no say?
    The Constitution specifically prohibits slavery in the states.

    Amendment XIII

    Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

    Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
    -----------------------------------------------------

    Notice that the Constitution provides specific powers for the Federal government.

    The Bill of Rights is completely superfluous and serves no useful purpose, even at the Federal level. It was added as an afterthought to placate the anti-Federalists in New York and Virginia.

    It most certainly was never designed to affect the states.

  15. #89
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,632

    resinstitution of slavery

    Quote Originally Posted by zacii View Post
    So, theoretically, a state could legalize slavery, against the BOR? And the federal gov't would have no say?
    Not really. First there were post Civil War amendments ratified by the states which completely changed the previous arrangement--and which are the basis for the BOR applying to the states in almost all manner.

    We also have some very clear assertions on the meaning and intent of the 14th by the authors of the document, Congressional members of the day, and some justices.

    The Supreme Court has also applied, or incorporated--whatever you want to call it-- all of the key BOR provisions against the states.

    That is why for example Arizona lost Miranda and now everyone must be mirandized so the cops don't deliberately violate the 5th.
    That is why you can't be forced to testify against yourself in state procedings. That is why you are free to post here without interference by the states. That is why you can refuse to give consent to having your car searched, and insist on a warrant for other searches; and if done without these the evidence is excluded.

    The second amendment is the only one in which for a variety of peculiar reasons mired mostly in judges being fearful of guns and many DAs and police being influential members of the legal community, 2A somehow never got the same treatment.

    The anti- gun rights posters here (who call themselves conservatives) do not want everyone in this great country of ours to enjoy the full rights and freedoms given to us in the BOR. The misconstrue the word Congress because they think the framers were great writers and said precisely what they meant with no ambiguity, no awkwardness of language usage and great precision. Yet, it takes just a little effort to uncover instance after instance in which grammatical errors, word usage errors, and very poor punctuation cause confusion about meaning.

    There are folks here who want to return our country to the ways of the mid-19th century, and they mask their reactionary purposes behind lofty proclomations on what they proclaim the constitution to mean.

    Bottom line though, we don't know what 2A means in terms of binding the states. THe circuit courts are split and the issue has not yet been taken up by the supreme court. THe very court these very same ultra conservatives will tell you lack all such jurisdiction anyway.

    Make no mistake about it, the only reason for opposing application of the 14th and the full BOR to the states is a reactionary purpose--a desire to return to the bad old days.

    It was in fact quite clear from the start that the BOR applied to the states as well. Were it not for slavery and the post civil war reconstruction disasters, and an occasional labor strike here or there in the late 19th century, the precedential rulings we are now being lambasted with would never have been made.

    We as a people get a choice. We can have one nation indivisible with guaranteed rights for all or we can continue to play games with the true meaning of the BOR and watch our rights as gun owners go down the toilet along with our rights against self-incrimination, protection from warrantless searches, our rights to speak up on poltical matters (Southern States did limit free speech inthe anti-bellum period), AND OUR GUN RIGHTS.

  16. #90
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,632

    Poppycock

    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    The Constitution specifically prohibits slavery in the states.

    Amendment XIII

    Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

    Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
    -----------------------------------------------------

    Notice that the Constitution provides specific powers for the Federal government.

    The Bill of Rights is completely superfluous and serves no useful purpose, even at the Federal level. It was added as an afterthought to placate the anti-Federalists in New York and Virginia.

    It most certainly was never designed to affect the states.
    Poppycock. Utterly illogical nonsense. The claim that the BOR was utterly superfluous and a mere afterthought flies in the face of the historical fact that the various states refused to ratify the basic constitution until a deal was made to add these provisions.

    That they were added makes them no less a part of the constitution.
    And the same goes for the 14th, 17th, and many others.

Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst ... 2345678 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Millions Of Gun Owners Reject Sotomayor
    By jfl in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: July 8th, 2009, 07:22 PM
  2. Analysis of Sotomayor and 2A issues
    By miklcolt45 in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: June 5th, 2009, 08:42 AM
  3. Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court
    By miklcolt45 in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 113
    Last Post: June 1st, 2009, 11:14 PM
  4. More About Sotomayor on Gun Control
    By CPTMO in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: May 29th, 2009, 09:35 AM
  5. Grilled out for the first time this year today...
    By TN_Mike in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: March 12th, 2007, 05:41 PM