Sotomayor: Right to Bear Arms Is Unconstitutional

[cobra de capell]

Sotomayor: Right to Bear Arms Is Unconstitutional

Sotomayor is a graduate from Princeton University, where her legal theses included Race in the American Classroom, and Undying Injustice: American "Exceptionalism" and Permanent Bigotry, and Deadly Obsession: American Gun Culture. In this text, the student Sotomayor explained that the Second Amendment to the Constitution did not actually afford individual citizens the right to bear arms, but only duly conferred organizations, like the military. Instead of making guns illegal, she argues that they have been illegal for individuals to own since the passing of the Bill of Rights.

http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/....html#comments
_____

Keep in mind, she is only Chairman Zero's first step with 1-2 additional Supreme's to possibly step down in 1-2 years.

She's after your guns.

[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?

[cobra bill]

I'm not really worried about it, first off no one is taking my guns away, and this has already been visited by the supreme court and not likely to come up again, and frankly she is too conservative for me, she has had 380 decisions, and most of those have sided with either the government or corporations, we don't need another corporate hack on the supreme court, we already have 4 of those, Roberts being the worst of the bunch, we need more to side with the people not corporation, or the government.

[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

[computerworks]

See...so there's no worry, is there?

[SP01715]

Originally Posted by computerworks

See...so there's no worry, is there?

I wish it was that easy...

[bomelia]

Originally Posted by cobra bill

I'm not really worried about it, first off no one is taking my guns away, and this has already been visited by the supreme court and not likely to come up again, and frankly she is too conservative for me, she has had 380 decisions, and most of those have sided with either the government or corporations, we don't need another corporate hack on the supreme court, we already have 4 of those, Roberts being the worst of the bunch, we need more to side with the people not corporation, or the government.

We need someone who will side with the Constitution. That is all.

[bomelia]

This ammendment was designed to prevent what had happened in feudal kingdoms of the past. A subject that could not bear arms was weak and unable to resist tyrany. When tryany exists, the people have a right to protect themselves from it. In the courts via litigation, through the electoral process, and when all else fails, the gun. Remember, I am talking about tyrany. Not a stupid parking ticket.

Mike

[cobra de capell]

Originally Posted by bomelia

This ammendment was designed to prevent what had happened in feudal kingdoms of the past. A subject that could not bear arms was weak and unable to resist tyrany. When tryany exists, the people have a right to protect themselves from it. In the courts via litigation, through the electoral process, and when all else fails, the gun. Remember, I am talking about tyrany. Not a stupid parking ticket.

Mike

That sounds true, but why is it that citizens cannot own the same weapons (guns) as the government? How can they, under the constitution, make laws that disallow the ownership by citizens of assault rifles, etc.?

It seems to me that we would be outgunned under Obama's tyrany - if he takes it over the line, big time.

[Seagull81]

They might want to remember history! The Minute Men were way out gunned too.

[cobra bill]

We would be outgunned under any administration, and as much as you are worried about Obama's, I was equally worried about the bush administration, so I guess I survived them just as you will survive Obama.

[392cobra]

Originally Posted by Seagull81

They might want to remember history! The Minute Men were way out gunned too.

That and I'm not too sure how well The Armed Forces would hold together if our sons & daughters were told to turn their guns against family and friends.