Sotomayor: Right to Bear Arms Is Unconstitutional

[computerworks]

Actually, her opinion was that the Constitutional right to bear arms was not meant to apply to the individual; she expressed that...the decision should be left up to the States... a very proper conservative view.

I don't get over to moonbattery.com that often so, I don't know what they actually said there.

[427sharpe]

FAR from a 'conservative view' I am afraid. The liberal attempt has been made to make it a 'states rights' issue, but thru radical expansion of the federal powers of interstate regulation, make shipping weapons for personal use impossible. This was a tack after getting their collective tails handed to them on numerous 'frontal assaults' on what has been held repeatedly to be the correct interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. This is one reason Montana and Texas have entered the fray to deny federal authority over guns..any guns..made and used intrastate.
Remember Lott: A man with a gun is a citizen; a man without a gun is a subject. Which do you prefer?

[SP01715]

Originally Posted by computerworks

Actually, her opinion was that the Constitutional right to bear arms was not meant to apply to the individual; she expressed that...the decision should be left up to the States... a very proper conservative view.

States can't make law that take away constitutional rights.

[computerworks]

Originally Posted by SP01715

States can't make law that take away constitutional rights.

Quite correct, that's why she gave the opinion that, without individuals being covered by 2A, it was left to the States to decide.

[SP01715]

Originally Posted by computerworks

Quite correct, that's why she gave the opinion that, without individuals being covered by 2A, it was left to the States to decide.

Article the fourth [Amendment II][3]

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.

I don't know how you can read the above and not think that it applies to individuals.

[computerworks]

I read that as the people of a well regulated Militia...

...but I am no constitutional lawyer.

But I am smart enough to realize this issue is no big deal.

[VRM]

Originally Posted by SP01715

Article the fourth [Amendment II][3]

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.

I don't know how you can read the above and not think that it applies to individuals.

He did not say that he did. He did say that she did.

And the text does say 'regulated' implying some level of regulation, and it does say 'state' not 'nation'.

I know what I want it to mean, and I think I know what it was intended to mean (and they are pretty close), but the wording is just not as clear as it really could have been.

Steve

[SP01715]

here is a link that includes language from the liberal 9th circuit on a case where even they affirmed that the second amendment is an individual right.

http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/InTheNews.aspx?ID=12523