BigGameHunt.net Hunting Forums

[moderator]

Full Story:

Sotomayor May Be Harmful to Second Amendment Rights

Please use this area to post comments or questions about this news item.

[pangolin]

I can see how ruling on the right to carry nunchukas might seem to be a far way off from gun rights but they are broadly covered by the second amendment. And though a small percentage of the population probably has or wishes to carry nunchukas the rights of a minority need to be respected.

But the exact same conclusion arrived at by the extremely conservative 7th circuit yesterday (in this case about guns) would tend to make me think that it's a point of law being discussed. In general judges don't seek to disagree with or overturn Supreme Court rulings. (Heller vs DC)

[bitmasher]

The SCOTUS needs to take NRA vs Chicago and not chicken out. Heller vs D.C. is a special case because D.C is not a state; a huge technicality that still allows the states, counties, and municipalities to abridge the second amendment.

I will agree that Sotomayor was only following previous SCOTUS rulings in Maloney v. Cuomo and therefore in this case was not "legislating from the bench". However this does not rule out the idea that she may have a very narrow view of the founders intent of the second amendment. I presume this is why the title is "Sotomayor May Be Harmful to Second Amendment Rights", because she has not said in her opinion how Heller applies to the states.

[JTapia]

[pangolin]

Well you have to remember it's not her opinion, but rather an unsigned opion of a three judge panel. Historicaly Sotomayor is not an activist judge, probably she, the other two judges on the second, and the judges in Chicago are all simply trying to not write an opinion that would seem to contradict Heller.

Chicago would be a far better case to test the limits with, not least of all because people more often associate second amendment rights with guns, not nunchukas.

[expatriate]

Anti-gunners who are crowing about victory in Chicago need to give this a little more thought. As the saying goes, be careful what you wish for.

This isn't about gun control. It's the biggest debate over states' rights since the Civil War. This case would gut the federal government's authority to impose its will on states.

If you establish that the 2nd Amendment only applies to the federal government and doesn't constrain the states, then by extension the entire document applies only to the federal government and doesn't apply to the states. Think about that for a moment. If the 2nd Amendment doesn't constrain states, then the 1st Amendment doesn't either. As an extreme example, neither does the 13th Amendment -- and the South wins the Civil War almost 150 years after it started.

The entire Bill of Rights would apply only to the federal government, and states could affect any of those rights at their discretion. Bull Connor would jump for joy.

The NRA's argument about all rights stemming from the 2nd Amendment may prove prophetically true. This case is ultimately about federalism. If the Chicago decision (and corresponding opinion held by Sotomayor) is upheld, its effects could radically transform our system of government. We have a choice -- make Heller the law of the land, or disavow the supremacy of the Constitution.

[bitmasher]

Yup, well said Ex. The SCOTUS really really needs to take the case. Its what Heller should have been w/o D.C. technicality.

[expatriate]

How ironic it is to see liberals so ecstatic about one of the most conservative decisions to come off a bench in decades.

[WesternHunter]

I's a sure bet that no matter who Obama appoints, that person will be anti-gun.

[Sage of the Sage]

I generally lean pretty much to the right in my opinions, but based on what I've read about Sotomayor, nothing really seems that troubling to me. There are some conservative pundits trying to pull things out here and there, I assume mostly because of who nominated her and the appearance of her nomination being based primarily on her gender and ethnicity, but in the end, she's basically a liberal leaning judge replacing a liberal leaning judge.

I can't say I'm an Obama fan in general, but I'm not inclined to think Sotomayor is going to be a problematic, activist judge. At least I don't get that impression, anyway. Point is, I'm not terribly worried about my guns getting snatched in the near future. I hear a lot of paranoid hype, but I don't see it happening. The truth is, there are a lot of Democrats that are pro 2nd Amendment... at least here in Montana.

[expatriate]

I find two things on Sotomayor's record particularly disturbing:

1. Her position on the 2nd Amendment. Not only does she not believe it protects individual rights, she believes it doesn't restrict states at all. That's about as anti-gun as it gets. But as I said earlier, she has to know that argument may work to uphold local and state gun control schemes, but won't hold up at SCOTUS level. This is judicial activism, pure and simple. It also indicates a willingness to subjugate individual liberties in favor of the State. Even liberals can respect individual liberties.

2. Her ruling in the New Haven case. New Haven Fire Dept threw out its entire promotion list simply because not enough blacks were on it. If they had thrown out a list because it had too many blacks on it and not enough whites, there would be riots. This tells me she doesn't look at issues objectively, and has selective values when it comes to things like race. I want SCOTUS judges to look at things through a legal lens, not political.

Overall, what I see here is a judge that has little respect for individual liberty. And frankly, I think that issue transcends left/right politics. I'm OK with keeping an ideological balance on the court, but we need to be sure that our judges value our individual rights.