Sotomayor's on gun rights (today)

Discussion in 'The Constitutional & RKBA Forum' started by 22WRF, Jun 11, 2009.

  1. 22WRF

    22WRF Well-Known Member

    May 10, 2004
    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>&ps=1018&_LT=HOME_LARSDCCL2_UNEWS
  2. Typical liberal. Ask her the same question three times and you get three different answers. She's just like her benefactor, The Hussein.

  3. Suicide*Ride

    Suicide*Ride New Member

    Apr 6, 2009
    Golden, Colorado
    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! :p) IMHO, she speaketh w/ fork'ed tongue! :mad:

    SR :)
  4. 45nut

    45nut Well-Known Member

    Jul 19, 2006
    Dallas, TX
    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.
  5. 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.
    Last edited: Jun 12, 2009
  6. 45nut

    45nut Well-Known Member

    Jul 19, 2006
    Dallas, TX
    I with you bcj. I don't think she's anti, I know it. :mad: My above post was done tongue in cheek to the above quote emphasis mine.
  7. Haligan

    Haligan Well-Known Member

    Feb 25, 2008
    FEMA Region II
    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.:rolleyes:
    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 ! ! ! !
    Last edited: Jun 12, 2009
  8. To hell with the party!!!!!:mad::mad::mad::mad: 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:rolleyes::rolleyes: Anymore, either party is nothing but a mouthpiece for the socialistic globalists who want nothing more than total control over everything and everybody:mad::mad:
    Last edited: Jun 12, 2009
  9. Hardballer

    Hardballer New Member

    yup!!! :mad:
    Last edited: Jun 12, 2009
  10. Hardballer

    Hardballer New Member

    YUP! :mad:Sorry about that double posting.
    Last edited: Jun 12, 2009
  11. Marlin

    Marlin *TFF Admin Staff Chief Counselor*

    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.....
  12. Bobitis

    Bobitis Guest

    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".
  13. torpedoman

    torpedoman New Member

    Aug 26, 2007
    chattaroy wa.
    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.
  14. alhefner

    alhefner New Member

    Feb 4, 2009
    Reno, NV
    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.
  15. 45nut

    45nut Well-Known Member

    Jul 19, 2006
    Dallas, TX
    Get the man a cigar. He knows more about jurisprudence than Sotomayor does.
    Last edited: Jun 15, 2009
Similar Threads
Forum Title Date
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Did Wisconsin just lose the 4th amendment rights Sep 18, 2016
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum thoughts on 2A rights of minors Mar 19, 2016
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum These Hillary Supporters Want Her to Repeal the Bill of Rights if She's Elected President Aug 4, 2015
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Supreme Court Agrees To Hear New Gun Rights Case Oct 20, 2014
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Gun rights advocates N.Y. burned nearly one thousand gun registration forms Mar 17, 2014