Sotomayor's on gun rights (today) - The Firearms Forum

22WRF · 06-11-2009, 07:58 PM

WASHINGTON (AP) — Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor told a senator Thursday that she would follow a historic ruling affirming Americans' right to own guns for self-defense, but pro-gun activists said they still believe she'd work to limit gun rights if confirmed for the high court.

Democratic Sen. Mark Udall of Colorado said Sotomayor told him during a private meeting that she considers the 2008 ruling that struck down a Washington, D.C., handgun ban as settled law that would guide her decisions in future cases. In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court held that individuals have a constitutional right to guns.

Read on

http://www.mediacomtoday.com/news/re...ARSDCCL2_UNEWS

bcj1755 · 06-11-2009, 08:20 PM

Typical liberal. Ask her the same question three times and you get three different answers. She's just like her benefactor, The Hussein.

Suicide*Ride · 06-11-2009, 08:46 PM

I don't believe ANYTHING that ANYONE says re: firearms & RKBA while trying out for a public job, title, postion, or office!! Nada, zero, zilch! They're full of poo poo, sticky stinky, brown bunk, (feel free to add your own!

) IMHO, she speaketh w/ fork'ed tongue!

SR

45nut · 06-12-2009, 08:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bcj1755

Typical liberal. Ask her the same question three times and you get three different answers. She's just like her benefactor, The Hussein.

Then why did she rule that the 2A was a collective right to the states not the individual? Hmmmm

Full article here

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.

bcj1755 · 06-12-2009, 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 45nut

Then why did she rule that the 2A was a collective right to the states not the individual? Hmmmm

Full article here

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.

I'm not saying she's PRO-2nd Amendment. I'm saying she's ANTI, just like her benefactor Obambabababa. And, like Barry, she's always changing the answers she gives when asked the same questions. She either can't make up her mind, or is a blatent liar (I vote for the latter). She's no different than any other liberal closet-commie.

45nut · 06-12-2009, 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 22WRF

WASHINGTON (AP) — Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor told a senator Thursday that she would follow a historic ruling affirming Americans' right to own guns for self-defense, but pro-gun activists said they still believe she'd work to limit gun rights if confirmed for the high court.]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bcj1755

I'm not saying she's PRO-2nd Amendment. I'm saying she's ANTI, just like her benefactor Obambabababa.

I with you bcj. I don't think she's anti, I know it.

My above post was done tongue in cheek to the above quote emphasis mine.

Haligan · 06-12-2009, 10:54 AM

See, these liberals(sorry "progressives") read the polls, they know if they tell everyone how she REALLY will rule, or opinion on the subject of the 2nd; she'll meet more resistance.
Dabamma is pro 2nd ammendment.

You heard him during the campaign. But look what his Attorny General said.
"just a few things they'd like to do......."
He got slammed and you haven't heard word one on it in about a month.

Just like a politician, this Sotomayor will say whatever she thinks she needs to say to get into the office she wants.
Once she's there, look out.
Big difference here is this is a lifetime appointment.

So many "Republicans" have said it will hurt the party if they oppose her nomination.

I think, We have to fight her nomination with whatever strength we have left ! ! ! !

bcj1755 · 06-12-2009, 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Haligan

So many "Republicans" have said it will hurt the party if they oppose her nomination.

To hell with the party!!!!!

Partisan politics is part of what's wrong with this country!!! The politicians always spout off about "the party the party" like their party is more important than the country! They're not too far away from the blather that you always hear from one party totalitarian dictatorships. You know, the Communist Party is all important, the National Socialist Party is all important. Now we keep hearing the Democratic Party is all important or the Republican Party is all important

Anymore, either party is nothing but a mouthpiece for the socialistic globalists who want nothing more than total control over everything and everybody

Hardballer · 06-12-2009, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bcj1755

To hell with the party!!!!!

Partisan politics is part of what's wrong with this country!!! The politicians always spout off about "the party the party" like their party is more important than the country! They're not too far away from the blather that you always hear from one party totalitarian dictatorships. You know, the Communist Party is all important, the National Socialist Party is all important. Now we keep hearing the Democratic Party is all important or the Republican Party is all important

Anymore, either party is nothing but a mouthpiece for the socialistic globalists who want nothing more than total control over everything and everybody

yup!!!

Hardballer · 06-12-2009, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bcj1755

To hell with the party!!!!!

Partisan politics is part of what's wrong with this country!!! The politicians always spout off about "the party the party" like their party is more important than the country! They're not too far away from the blather that you always hear from one party totalitarian dictatorships. You know, the Communist Party is all important, the National Socialist Party is all important. Now we keep hearing the Democratic Party is all important or the Republican Party is all important

Anymore, either party is nothing but a mouthpiece for the socialistic globalists who want nothing more than total control over everything and everybody

YUP! Sorry about that double posting.

Marlin · 06-12-2009, 02:43 PM

I would take anything an ultra-liberal socialist/communist says with a grain of salt. They are NOT KNOWN for their veracity !!!!!!!!!!!

If you believe her, I sure have a nice bridge I can sell you real cheaply priced.....

Bobitis · 06-12-2009, 07:16 PM

Therein lies the problem.
She's a politician first, and a Judge second.

From the Hunt for Red October:
Jeffrey Pelt: "Listen, I'm a politician which means I'm a cheat and a liar, and when I'm not kissing babies I'm stealing their lollipops. But it also means I keep my options open".

torpedoman · 06-12-2009, 09:42 PM

she makes no difference she is replacing an anti gun judge so the make up of the court does not change regardless of how she votes unless in a real suprise she does support the 2nd. As for it being up to the state and city if they find for that theory, then a pro gun state should pass laws requiring all news reporting to be approved by the newly formed censors office and include all the national networks that broadcast into their state. when challanged they can point to the fact that if the 2nd is up to the states then the first is also.

alhefner · 06-13-2009, 03:51 PM

Sotomayor, in her last official decision concerning the Second Amendment stated that the Second Amendment only has legal influence over FEDERAL legislation and can't be applied to state or local laws.

She agrees with the Heller decision by stating that D.C. law is FEDERAL law thus the Second Amendment does apply in THAT CASE only.

As I have stated before, all ten amendments that make up the Bill of Rights have EQUAL weight under the law. If one of those amendments can not be applied to state or local law, then neither can ANY of the other nine.

With that reasoning, a state may make any law limiting not only the right to keep and bear arms but also freedom of the press. They could also do away with any need for a warrant prior to a search or arrest, do away with the right to trial by jury, declare all land in that to be "state owned" and not private property...the list of possible abuses goes on and on.

As for the thought that her being the replacement for an already liberal, read that idiot, judge won't make a difference, that is simply the wrong way to look at it. Every judge on the Supreme Court must focus only on the application of law, not some "agenda" or "idea". If a Judge does not like a law, then tough! They must abide by that law and apply it were applicable. Any "judge" that refuses to apply the law must be removed from the bench.

45nut · 06-15-2009, 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alhefner

As I have stated before, all ten amendments that make up the Bill of Rights have EQUAL weight under the law. If one of those amendments can not be applied to state or local law, then neither can ANY of the other nine.

Get the man a cigar. He knows more about jurisprudence than Sotomayor does.

bcj1755 · 06-15-2009, 09:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 45nut

Get the man a cigar. He know more about jurisprudence than Sotomayor does.

But but but, her experience growing up as a latina gives her knowledge and experince that a white man doesn't have

And if Barry picked her, it's because she can "empaphize" with the "poor and less fortunate"

Am I the only one that noticed that a while ago, either during the campaign or right after he was elected, Barry made a comment about what he would look for if he were called upon to nominate a justice to SCOTUS? He blathered on about picking someone with empathy for the oppressed minorities and someone who could put themselves in the shoes of a welfare mom and all kinds of other stupid liberal feel good blather.

And then lo and behold, a couple three months later he gets his chance

Coinidence? I don't believe in it. Smells like another set-up to me.

RDak · 06-15-2009, 09:54 AM

I don't believe her completely but incorporation will win in the SCOTUS with or without her IMHO.

Sorry to change the subject but did you guys/gals see this letter written to Eric Holder from 23 State Attorney Generals?

http://www.nraila.org/media/PDFs/Sem...tter061109.pdf

This is our time people. Finally, after 40 darn years of fighting this battle, we are winning and we are winning BIG. FINALLY!!!

06-11-2009, 07:58 PM	#1
22WRF Advanced Senior Member Join Date: May 2004 Location: Pea Ridge, FL Contributor Posts: 4,252	Sotomayor's on gun rights (today) WASHINGTON (AP) — Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor told a senator Thursday that she would follow a historic ruling affirming Americans' right to own guns for self-defense, but pro-gun activists said they still believe she'd work to limit gun rights if confirmed for the high court. Democratic Sen. Mark Udall of Colorado said Sotomayor told him during a private meeting that she considers the 2008 ruling that struck down a Washington, D.C., handgun ban as settled law that would guide her decisions in future cases. In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court held that individuals have a constitutional right to guns. Read on http://www.mediacomtoday.com/news/re...ARSDCCL2_UNEWS __________________ NRA GOA CCRKBA Happiness is a warm barrel -->

06-11-2009, 08:20 PM	#2
bcj1755 Advanced Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: A wretched hive of scum and villiany Posts: 4,357	Re: Sotomayor's on gun rights (today) Typical liberal. Ask her the same question three times and you get three different answers. She's just like her benefactor, The Hussein. __________________ History is much like an endless waltz. The three beats of war, peace, and revolution continue on forever. Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges - Cicero If ye 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

06-11-2009, 08:46 PM	#3
Suicide*Ride Advanced Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Golden, Colorado Posts: 1,340	Re: Sotomayor's on gun rights (today) I don't believe ANYTHING that ANYONE says re: firearms & RKBA while trying out for a public job, title, postion, or office!! Nada, zero, zilch! They're full of poo poo, sticky stinky, brown bunk, (feel free to add your own! ) IMHO, she speaketh w/ fork'ed tongue! SR __________________ "The price of FREEDOM can be seen here" ******(the sign outside every VA hospital)****** In an emergency, people don't rise to the occasion, but are reduced to their level of training. When something is trying to eat you, it is hard to get off a good shot! "If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous, he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and a man." - Twain

06-12-2009, 10:54 AM	#7
Haligan Advanced Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: FEMA Region II Posts: 1,900	Re: Sotomayor's on gun rights (today) See, these liberals(sorry "progressives") read the polls, they know if they tell everyone how she REALLY will rule, or opinion on the subject of the 2nd; she'll meet more resistance. Dabamma is pro 2nd ammendment. You heard him during the campaign. But look what his Attorny General said. "just a few things they'd like to do......." He got slammed and you haven't heard word one on it in about a month. Just like a politician, this Sotomayor will say whatever she thinks she needs to say to get into the office she wants. Once she's there, look out. Big difference here is this is a lifetime appointment. So many "Republicans" have said it will hurt the party if they oppose her nomination. I think, We have to fight her nomination with whatever strength we have left ! ! ! ! __________________ "He who knows nothing is closer to the truth than he whose mind is filled with falshoods and errors." - Thomas Jefferson Last edited by Haligan; 06-12-2009 at 10:56 AM.. Reason: spelling

06-12-2009, 02:43 PM	#11
Marlin TFF Admin Staff Chief Counselor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: At SouthernMoss' side forever! Contributor Posts: 13,853	Re: Sotomayor's on gun rights (today) I would take anything an ultra-liberal socialist/communist says with a grain of salt. They are NOT KNOWN for their veracity !!!!!!!!!!! If you believe her, I sure have a nice bridge I can sell you real cheaply priced..... __________________ *The flag represents a living country and is itself considered a living thing.* *The only criminal class native to the United States is Congress.*

06-12-2009, 07:16 PM	#12
Bobitis Advanced Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 6,612	Re: Sotomayor's on gun rights (today) Therein lies the problem. She's a politician first, and a Judge second. From the Hunt for Red October: Jeffrey Pelt: "Listen, I'm a politician which means I'm a cheat and a liar, and when I'm not kissing babies I'm stealing their lollipops. But it also means I keep my options open". __________________ ^.^ A point in every direction is the same as having no point at all

06-12-2009, 09:42 PM	#13
torpedoman V.I.P. Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: chattaroy wa. Posts: 65	Re: Sotomayor's on gun rights (today) she makes no difference she is replacing an anti gun judge so the make up of the court does not change regardless of how she votes unless in a real suprise she does support the 2nd. As for it being up to the state and city if they find for that theory, then a pro gun state should pass laws requiring all news reporting to be approved by the newly formed censors office and include all the national networks that broadcast into their state. when challanged they can point to the fact that if the 2nd is up to the states then the first is also. __________________ never pull your pistol til the talking is all done. When you pull it shoot.

06-13-2009, 03:51 PM	#14
alhefner V.I.P. Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Reno, NV Posts: 205	Re: Sotomayor's on gun rights (today) Sotomayor, in her last official decision concerning the Second Amendment stated that the Second Amendment only has legal influence over FEDERAL legislation and can't be applied to state or local laws. She agrees with the Heller decision by stating that D.C. law is FEDERAL law thus the Second Amendment does apply in THAT CASE only. As I have stated before, all ten amendments that make up the Bill of Rights have EQUAL weight under the law. If one of those amendments can not be applied to state or local law, then neither can ANY of the other nine. With that reasoning, a state may make any law limiting not only the right to keep and bear arms but also freedom of the press. They could also do away with any need for a warrant prior to a search or arrest, do away with the right to trial by jury, declare all land in that to be "state owned" and not private property...the list of possible abuses goes on and on. As for the thought that her being the replacement for an already liberal, read that idiot, judge won't make a difference, that is simply the wrong way to look at it. Every judge on the Supreme Court must focus only on the application of law, not some "agenda" or "idea". If a Judge does not like a law, then tough! They must abide by that law and apply it were applicable. Any "judge" that refuses to apply the law must be removed from the bench. __________________ I hunt with a camera! - my outdoor blog Fighting "Gun Crime" by focusing on the criminal

06-15-2009, 09:54 AM	#17
RDak Member Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Michigan Posts: 25	Re: Sotomayor's on gun rights (today) I don't believe her completely but incorporation will win in the SCOTUS with or without her IMHO. Sorry to change the subject but did you guys/gals see this letter written to Eric Holder from 23 State Attorney Generals? http://www.nraila.org/media/PDFs/Sem...tter061109.pdf This is our time people. Finally, after 40 darn years of fighting this battle, we are winning and we are winning BIG. FINALLY!!!