Skip to comments.Sotomayor's stance on gun rights prompts questions
Posted on 06/12/2009 5:23:09 PM PDT by neverdem
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...
If it were up to Sotomayor, DeMint said Thursday, Heller would only apply to federal jurisdictions. "(H)er opinion was that the hundreds of millions of Americans in the 50 states do not have a fundamental right to bear arms. She refused to back away from that opinion in my meeting with her," DeMint said Thursday.
"We're communicating to the Senate that you may have cast some pro-Second Amendment votes, but those are all going to be canceled out if you vote for her, because when she gets (to the Supreme Court), she's just going to cancel out everything you've voted for anyway," Pratt said. He said the judge has "an unabated hostility to individual gun ownership."...
We've been doing it for years.
We've been doing it for years.
Something tells me she going to get borked by the rats. They split their vote 27 - 27 on the Coburn Amendment for concealed carry in national parks.
If she cannot read the document clearer than that she should automatically be disqualified as a candidate.
Clear as the nose on her face.
Neighboring Indiana has a Constitution as well which states: Section 32. Arms--Right to bear Section 32. The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State. .
Right off hand in looking through the New York constitution I didn't find much recognition of any individual rights of any kind, but Corporations get an entire section virtually equal to the volume required to establish the state government.
Some states are undoubtedly FUBAR ~ and Sotomayor comes from one of them. She must believe a wise latina wrote the NY POS.
Some noteworthy articles about politics, foreign or military affairs, IMHO, FReepmail me if you want on or off my list.
Well, isn't that nice.
What *historic ruling* would that happen to be?
She probably also thinks like Hugo Chavez, and so does the "one" who sleeps in the White House".
Thanks for the ping!
Sotomayor sees Heller as settled law. Settled law that she will do her damnedest to limit in every possible way. She has already rendered one decision saying the Heller does not apply to the states.
I would NOT trust her. Her cultural mindset is not that of an American.
But then, neither is Barry’s! LOL.
The basic premise of the left is derived from the pseudo-scientific theory of Enviromental Materialism which has good material such as gooberment screwls and bad material such as firearms that must be controlled by people like Sotamayor. But the theory is basically junk that is now down superstition and make believe fairy tale PC that guns are “bad magic fire sticks of the white devils.”
FYI, there is no NEED for the Supremes to consider 2nd Amendment Incorporation! FACT: The 2nd Amendment is SELF-incorporated to all government entities at every level. It is MORE ABSOLUTE than the 1st Amendment, or any of the others, because the wording forbids not only CONGRESS, but ANYONE from infringing on it. The 1st says Congress shall make no law.... The 2nd say shall NOT be infringed! Period! End of debate!
It's not so much the meaning of the Constitutioon. It's that she can't understand the meaning of ONE SENTENCE!
"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."
How uncomplicated can it get?
The woman's a leftist activist and should be rejected.