Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Sotomayor Guns For 2nd Amendment (CORRECTED)
Investor's Business Daily ^ | June 4, 2009 | Editorial

Posted on 06/05/2009 5:14:41 AM PDT by WhiteCastle

(Corrected) Gun Control: In a case headed for the Supreme Court, a three-judge panel rules Chicago's gun ban constitutional since the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to states and cities. High court nominee Sonia Sotomayor concurs.Those Pennsylvania townsfolk bitterly clinging to their guns may have been premature in celebrating the decision in D.C. v. Heller that the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does indeed guarantee an individual right to keep and bear arms.

(Excerpt) Read more at ibdeditorials.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Editorial; Government; US: District of Columbia
KEYWORDS: 2a; 2nd; 2ndamendment; agenda; agwnda; antoninscalia; armedcitizen; assaultweaponsban; awb; banglist; batf; bho44; bhofascism; bhojudicialnominees; bhoscotus; bhotyranny; billofrights; chicago; chicagohandgunban; colddeadhands; colddeadhans; constitution; dc; districtofcolumbia; djsob; donttreadonme; firearms; freedom; givemeliberty; gunban; guncontrol; gund; gunrights; guns; handguns; heller; ibd; justicescalia; keepandbeararms; liberalfascism; liberty; nra; obama; registration; righttocarry; rkba; rtkba; scalia; scotus; second; secondamendment; selfdefense; shallnotbeinfringed; soniasotomayor; sotomayor; sotomayorwatch; statesrights; supremecourt; wiselatina
This was misposted yesterday. The thread body was pulled erroneously from another post.
1 posted on 06/05/2009 5:14:41 AM PDT by WhiteCastle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: WhiteCastle

That will be even a bigger issue than the “hispanic latina” comment. The Democrats from red states will not be happy to have to vote for someone who so clearly wants to take away the right to bear arms.


2 posted on 06/05/2009 5:35:06 AM PDT by winner3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WhiteCastle

She’s going to torque off both sides if the issue is properly pressed now. As part of the 2nd Circuit, she recently ruled that the 2ndA only applies to the feds - and in doing so acknowledged that, indeed, it forbids the ability of the federal government to limit RKBA. Ergo, she will be faced with either hugely backpedaling on a very clear official statement (very embarassing), else will have to remain consistent and overturn HR45, AWB II, 922(o), NFA, etc.

So, perversely, at least in theory she’s a great pick for the NRA types, having talked herself into a corner. And this is how we’ll ultimately win RKBA back: talk ‘em into a corner using their own words.


3 posted on 06/05/2009 6:19:10 AM PDT by ctdonath2 (John Galt was exiled.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WhiteCastle

“the 2nd Amendment doesn’t apply to states and cities”

As far as I recall, it doesn’t say “Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to keep and bear arms,” á la the first amendment. It simply says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. To me, that means it won’t be infringed by anyone. ‘Cause the Constitution doesn’t just tell the federal government what it can and can’t do; it also tells the states what they can’t do.

Then there’s the whole “incorporation” thing, which is BS, but is well-established.


4 posted on 06/05/2009 6:30:13 AM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane
Then there’s the whole “incorporation” thing, which is BS,...

Yes it is... The Constitution never mentions the word "incorporation."

The Constituion never mentions "education" or "marriage" either...

5 posted on 06/05/2009 6:33:31 AM PDT by Sir Francis Dashwood (Arjuna, why have you have dropped your bow???)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane
None of these comments gets to what I believe to be the point.

I am not a lawyer, but common sense tells me that if the Constitution does not apply to the states, then states may forbid freedom of speech, forbid arms, change contracts at their whim, jail political enemies, ....on and on.

Obviously the Constitution and the Bill of Rights apply to the states as well.

Funny this stuff comes from a liberal court when it has been the liberal courts that applied federal laws to the states (equal opportunity, school busing, etc.) to bring about their version of life in these United States.

But now federal courts have no say in the matter of the 2nd Amendment?

6 posted on 06/05/2009 6:38:12 AM PDT by old curmudgeon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: old curmudgeon

“None of these comments gets to what I believe to be the point.

I am not a lawyer, but common sense tells me that if the Constitution does not apply to the states, then states may forbid freedom of speech, forbid arms, change contracts at their whim, jail political enemies, ....on and on.”

The comment about “incorporation” gets to the point you raise exactly. That’s what it means, that the states have been incorporated into the Bill of Rights by the equal protection and/or due process clauses of the 14th amendment. I still consider it to be BS, because neither equal protection nor due process imply anything of the sort. All they require is that everyone within a state be governed by the same laws and same legal processes, or if they are discriminated against it is in a fair and rational manner and not based on race, etc.

Anyway, one of the things you mention, changing contracts at whim, is specifically denied to the states in Article One. We call it “the contract clause”. It says, “No State shall...pass any...Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.” So you see, the Constitution often tells the states not to do stuff. Which is what they’re doing with the 2nd amendment, in my opinion.

The first amendment is a different matter. States ought not to be constrained by the amendments which refer to the federal government, like, you know, when it comes out and says “Congress shall make no law...” infringing upon so and so rights. If we don’t want state governments to restrict speech or establish a religion, we should either amend the Constitution or write that into state constitutions (they have ‘em too, darn it!)


7 posted on 06/05/2009 6:55:56 AM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: old curmudgeon

I can well remember federal forces converging in the South to enforce civil rights mandates. The Constitution obviously applied to state and local governments then, to say that it doesn’t apply now flies in the face of all reason!


8 posted on 06/05/2009 7:24:33 AM PDT by SWAMPSNIPER (THE SECOND AMENDMENT, A MATTER OF FACT, NOT A MATTER OF OPINION)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: WhiteCastle
(Corrected) Gun Control: In a case headed for the Supreme Court, a three-judge panel rules Chicago's gun ban constitutional since the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to states and cities.
It's not as simple as the article makes it to be - as above or in the article body.

Whatever was written in the decision, the bottom line, fall back position was 'starry decide us' /s. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals had previously ruled 'collective right' and there was no way it would overturn itself, so it punted, then they all went to dinner. /s

The 'funny thing' is that the Precedent the 7th used used (stary decisis) was a challenge to Morton Grove, IL's gun ban. Morton Grove was the first city to ban handguns, then Chicago and others followed suit. Now here's the funny part --

The day after Heller came down Morton Grove Repealed Its Gun Ban Law. They knew this would it wind up in SCOTUS and didn't want to waste its taxpayers money on a losing cause.
So Chicago will fight on to SCOTUS. Spending money it already doesn't have, all to make the psycho Mayor Daley feel like he is still all powerful in his Kingdom, and has a big wiener. (If he could he'd be driving a Corvette or Ferrari to compensate)

as to Oak Park, screw em. They're a bunch of ex hippies who've raised a bunch of quiche eating, sandal wearing, Volvo driving, ultra-über lib moonbats. They deserve what they get.

9 posted on 06/05/2009 7:26:27 AM PDT by Condor51 (The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sir Francis Dashwood
The Constituion never mentions "education" or "marriage" either..

The writers failed miserably, to foresee the complete loss of common sense in the population, especially in the legal system.

10 posted on 06/05/2009 12:06:47 PM PDT by itsahoot (Each generation takes to excess, what the previous generation accepted in moderation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Mojave
Sickem Mojave

Sotomayor Guns For 2nd Amendment

Lot of new friends to make here.

11 posted on 06/05/2009 12:12:52 PM PDT by itsahoot (Each generation takes to excess, what the previous generation accepted in moderation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane
No State shall...pass any...Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts

Wow, didn't that just get thrown out the window with GM, and Chrysler?

12 posted on 06/05/2009 12:17:47 PM PDT by itsahoot (Each generation takes to excess, what the previous generation accepted in moderation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: SWAMPSNIPER
I can well remember federal forces converging in the South to enforce civil rights mandates.

George Wallace a sitting Governor threatened with arrest?

Eisenhower Federalizing the National Guard in Arkansas.

Voting Rights acts that only applied to Southern states.

Why stop now?

13 posted on 06/05/2009 12:25:09 PM PDT by itsahoot (Each generation takes to excess, what the previous generation accepted in moderation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: itsahoot

“The requested document does not exist on this server.”


14 posted on 06/05/2009 12:54:23 PM PDT by Mojave (Don't blame me. I voted for McClintock.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: itsahoot

“Wow, didn’t that just get thrown out the window with GM, and Chrysler?”

Oh, but the bondholders agreed to it willingly. Or...uh...35% of them did. We didn’t pressure them or anything.

As for the AIG executives, we scared them a little with pitchforks and vague criminal charges. But it wasn’t at the point of a gun...literally.


15 posted on 06/05/2009 3:09:02 PM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: SWAMPSNIPER

“I can well remember federal forces converging in the South to enforce civil rights mandates.”

Actually, the federals came to enforce their sovereignty against rebel usurpers. It wasn’t about anyone’s civil rights until at least two years in. And even that was more about strategy and PR. The real civil rights reckoning came in the usual Constitutional way, with the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments.


16 posted on 06/05/2009 3:12:08 PM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Condor51

“The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals had previously ruled ‘collective right’”

“Collective right,” pishaw. Is there a collective right to free speech? Like I have to get my entire town to sign off before I can post my blog?


17 posted on 06/05/2009 3:15:04 PM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane

The amendments have to actually be incorporated. It wasn’t done on a whole sale basis. The second is one that notably hasn’t been incorporated.

I have seen some people say that Easterbrook and Posner are using this decision as cert bait to get the SC to incorporate it.


18 posted on 06/05/2009 3:28:05 PM PDT by Mr. Blonde (You ever thought about being weird for a living?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Blonde

“The amendments have to actually be incorporated. It wasn’t done on a whole sale basis. The second is one that notably hasn’t been incorporated.”

That doesn’t make much sense. I mean, I understand that it has to be decided before it’s decided, but isn’t it a fait accompli? I mean, if some amendments have been incorporated, because of substantive due process or what-have-you, how can others not be?

I still maintain that the second amendment, unlike the first, doesn’t say anything about Congress, and since the Constitution has several passages where it denies powers to the states, it can be so interpreted that the right to bear arms restricts the states as much as the feds, incorporation be damned.


19 posted on 06/05/2009 3:33:35 PM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Blonde

“how can others not be?”

Inevitably, I mean.


20 posted on 06/05/2009 3:34:46 PM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane

I don’t know why they chose to go by selective incorporation, but they did. Wikipedia tells me the chief writer of the 14th amendment, John Bingham, and Hugo Black both agree with you. Apparently they wanted a measured response that only those rights whose abridgment would “shock the conscience” be incorporated. Might be just a function of different times.

It seems to me that unless the constitution mentions a restriction on the state they are still free to do what they want in that area.


21 posted on 06/05/2009 3:51:35 PM PDT by Mr. Blonde (You ever thought about being weird for a living?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane
The point is thzt the federal government wants to pick and choose when it comes to constitutional issues. The Bill of Rights addresses issues that have been major bones of contention throughout recorded history, with a view toward settling them once and for all. It isn't hard to see that governemt may resent any restrictions on it's actions, and it is foolish to allow government to define it's own limits. The same must be said about the potential excesses of democracy.

The Founders intent was a bulwark between the power of government, and the whims of popular opinion, and the rights of an individual citizen.

Any reading of the Bill of Rights counter to this is invalid, whether it comes from a court, or not.

"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine". Thomas Jefferson

22 posted on 06/05/2009 4:14:02 PM PDT by SWAMPSNIPER (THE SECOND AMENDMENT, A MATTER OF FACT, NOT A MATTER OF OPINION)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Blonde

“It seems to me that unless the constitution mentions a restriction on the state they are still free to do what they want in that area.”

I find myself bending that way. Then I ask, if it’s assumed that everything not specified as pertaining to the state pertains to the federal government (which would only make sense, since it is the federal Constitution), then why does the first amendment bother to say, “Congress shall make no law...” That’s never been answered to my satisfaction.


23 posted on 06/05/2009 5:45:15 PM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane

How many others do? I’m on my phone but it doesn’t seem to mention the federal government specifically. I think the answer is that it is the founding document of the federal government so when speaking about the states it must mention them. The amendments are of course negotiated so it could have just been an oddity of that particular negotiation.


24 posted on 06/05/2009 7:14:56 PM PDT by Mr. Blonde (You ever thought about being weird for a living?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Mojave
“The requested document does not exist on this server.”

Strange, it was a link to this very thread.

25 posted on 06/05/2009 7:18:09 PM PDT by itsahoot (Each generation takes to excess, what the previous generation accepted in moderation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Blonde
--It seems to me that unless the constitution mentions a restriction on the state they are still free to do what they want in that area. --

But not completely free.

This "state citizen doesn't have the right until it's incorporated" is obviously BS from the courts. What, the citizens didn't have the right before the 14th was passed? That's illogical.

Rights don't flow from the people, to the states, then to the fed, to be doled back out to the people as the feds see fit. The RKBA exists independently of the 2nd amendment. Massive confusion because the words, RKBA, appear in the 2nd amendment, and people figure that if they don't get the 2nd amendment, they don't get RKBA. But RKBA is found in other places.

Too bad, the people run to poppa fed instead of holding their state and local despots feet to the fire. Before they know it, all their "rights and privileges" are going to be what the feds dictate. You wish for incorporation? Careful what you wish for.

26 posted on 06/05/2009 7:25:26 PM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: itsahoot
Strange, it was a link to this very thread.

It's not. Click it.

27 posted on 06/05/2009 8:12:30 PM PDT by Mojave (Don't blame me. I voted for McClintock.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson