Sotomayor's Gun Control Positions Could Prompt Conservative Backlash


festus

God Bless Our Troops!!!
Judge Sonia Sotomayor could walk into a firestorm on Capitol Hill over her stance on gun rights, with conservatives beginning to question some controversial positions she's taken over the past several years on the Second Amendment.
Link Removed
Earlier this year, President Obama's Supreme Court nominee joined an opinion with the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that Second Amendment rights do not apply to the states.

A 2004 opinion she joined also cited as precedent that "the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right."

Ken Blackwell, a senior fellow with the Family Research Council, called Obama's nomination a "declaration of war against America's gun owners."

Such a line of attack could prove more effective than efforts to define Sotomayor as pro-abortion, efforts that essentially grasp at straws. Sotomayor's record on that hot-button issue reveals instances in which she has ruled against an abortion rights group and in favor of anti-abortion protesters, making her hard to pigeonhole.

But Sotomayor's position on gun control is far more crystallized.

Blackwell, who also ran unsuccessfully to head the Republican National Committee, told FOX News her position is "very, very disturbing."

"That puts our Second Amendment freedoms at risk," he said. "What she's basically saying is that your hometown can decide to suppress your Second Amendment freedoms."

The chief concern is her position in the 2009 Maloney v. Cuomo case, in which the court examined a claim by a New York attorney that a New York law that prohibited possession of nunchucks violated his Second Amendment rights. The Appeals Court affirmed the lower court's decision that the Second Amendment does not apply to the states.

The ruling explained that it was "settled law" that the Second Amendment applies only to limitations the federal government might seek on individual gun rights.

Despite last year's landmark Supreme Court ruling in the District of Columbia v. Heller, in which the court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms, the Maloney ruling determined that case "does not invalidate this longstanding principle" that states are not covered by the Second Amendment. (Another appeals court since the Heller case reached the opposite conclusion.)

Justice David Souter, whom Sotomayor would replace, dissented from the majority decision in D.C. v. Heller, so Sotomayor wouldn't necessarily tip the balance on such issues. But she's joining a split body -- the D.C. case was a 5-4 decision -- and with the Maloney case likely to be appealed to the Supreme Court her presence could be threatening to gun rights groups.

"We have concerns and we have questions," Andrew Arulanandam, public affairs director for the National Rifle Association, told FOXNews.com. He said the NRA would work with members of Congress to have those concerns addressed in the coming months, and that the NRA has researchers looking more closely at Sotomayor's gun rights record.

Ken Klukowski, a fellow and legal analyst with the American Civil Rights Union, predicted this issue would heat up as the confirmation process moves forward.

"If this nomination were not to succeed, it would likely be because of the Second Amendment issue," he said.

Klukowski questioned the brevity of the Maloney decision, which spanned only a few pages, more than the actual conclusion. He said it glossed over decades of relevant legal precedent.

"The idea that you would be the first circuit court to take up this profound, constitutional question after the Supreme Court's landmark ruling and only give it one paragraph is stunning," he said.

But Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said the issue of Sotomayor's gun rights position is being "overblown" since the court was merely following precedent. He agreed that the Heller decision did not mean Second Amendment rights apply to states.

He said any controversy over the issue would be a "red herring."

As interest groups launch a heated campaign to define Sotomayor and draw the battle lines ahead of her confirmation process, the White House has voiced unequivocal confidence in her judgment.

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said Thursday that Obama was "very comfortable with her interpretation of the Constitution being similar to that of his."

FOXNews.com's Judson Berger and FOX News' Shannon Bream contributed to this report.
 

CapGun

New member
O.K. I need to read more about this but on the news (FOX) it was said that her statements meant that the Feds. did not have (Paraphrasing here) final say over the States. That is, that the 2a applied to the States' right to govern arms and not to the individual. That the Fed had no say in what the States decide. I am a strong believer in the "Original Intent" Which I believe meant that with limitations put on the Federal Gov't it was up to the States to decide what it could do. In the begining some States were set up as religious communities but soon abandoned that on their own. It would have meant that if a state wanted to make abortion legal it could and if another state wanted it illegal then that would be up to the residents (voters) of that state. Just move to the state that is inline with your beliefs. STATES RIGHTS!
My point is that with Sotomayor's view it would seem that a state could make whatever provisions regarding firearms and the Fed could do nothing about it.
This could mean no national checks to own guns. No permits. No gun type restrictions. It would be up to the voters therefore the state to legislate. We have more power in our own State then in the Federal Gov't. Just think this needs to be analyzed more. Having said that I do not support Sotomayer because of her racist and judicial activist views. Besides she has been overturned 3 times in her rulings for statutory reasons. Meaning she doesn't understand the basic law in her rulings. As in not really qualified! What do I know!? Just my $.02
 

rockwerks

New member
You have it all wrong, she basically says that parts of the constitution done apply to state governments, so the states can do as they see fit.
 

sixtracksfn

New member
I see what your saying, but from my understanding, anything not explicitly granted to the federal government in the constitution was left to the states. That being said, the 2A is in the constitution.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

And that being the case, leaves no room for the States or the Fed to "infringe" or regulate the right. It is the "right of the people." An explicit and fundamental right. No matter what Sotomayor said in her 2004 opinion.
 
Her statement was basically "states have a right to ban guns". Her record has been verified by SAF, NRA, GOA and several others. She is anti 2A and will maintain a status quo in SCOTUS. While there may be some attempt by conservatives to block her nomination, it is almost a given. Hopefully no conservative judge will fall ill or otherwise decide to retire during Obama's presidency. If this happens we are in a world of hurt.
 

rockwerks

New member
I see what your saying, but from my understanding, anything not explicitly granted to the federal government in the constitution was left to the states. That being said, the 2A is in the constitution.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

And that being the case, leaves no room for the States or the Fed to "infringe" or regulate the right. It is the "right of the people." An explicit and fundamental right. No matter what Sotomayor said in her 2004 opinion.


Options are like AZZholes everyone has one and most stink!
 

HK4U

New member
Our founding fathers new that our rights came from our creator. The Bill of Rights which the 2nd Amendment is part of did not give us the right but was written to keep marxists like Sotomayor, the Obamanation etc from infringing on those rights. How hard is that to understand?
 

CapGun

New member
Love the banter. Alot of truth was put forth about our 2 a rights. My point IS Check definition of is>>>>> If what Sotomayer says comes to pass and if that means the states can decide to restrict gun ownership I would think that the states would now have the power to grant gun ownership and type of weapons to any resident of the state thereby eliminating ANY GUN Control Ban laws passed at the Federal level. It is the other side of the same coin= law!
 

Ektarr

Dedicated Infidel
I see what your saying, but from my understanding, anything not explicitly granted to the federal government in the constitution was left to the states. That being said, the 2A is in the constitution.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

And that being the case, leaves no room for the States or the Fed to "infringe" or regulate the right. It is the "right of the people." An explicit and fundamental right. No matter what Sotomayor said in her 2004 opinion.

Options are like AZZholes everyone has one and most stink!

Rockwerks, that hardly qualifies as a thoughtful, considered response. If your opinion of "Options" (I assume you mean "opinions", no?) is so low, why do you elect to express your own? But since you DO, what is it about your opinion that makes it more worthy of consideration than his? I thought he made a good point, but...that's just MY opinion.

Lighten up, Dude...you sound like those guys on TV whose response to a dialog is to talk incessantly over the other party so that they can get their point of view heard while drowning out the other.
 

New Threads

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
49,333
Messages
622,517
Members
74,160
Latest member
etinivictor
Top