Is Sotomayor really anti-gun?
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-oped0618chapmanjun18,0,5860636.column
quote:Last summer, the U.S. Supreme Court, for the first time ever, said the 2nd Amendment protects an individual's right to own a gun for self-defense. It was a historic decision that put real limits on gun control. But gun-rights advocates complain that someone didn't get the memo -- someone named Sonia Sotomayor.
Exhibit A is her decision in January to uphold the conviction of a New York man for possession of fighting sticks called nunchakus. He said the law violated his right to keep and bear arms. But in a unanimous decision joined by Sotomayor, the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals found "it is settled law . . . that the 2nd Amendment does not apply to the states and therefore imposed no limitations on New York's ability to prohibit the possession of nunchakus" -- or, by implication, firearms.
Does that sound like the sort of arrogant verdict you would expect from an activist, liberal, gun-hating judge? It shouldn't. Sotomayor's decision was a model of judicial restraint that was entirely appropriate given the Supreme Court's record.
--excerpted--
quote:Last summer, the U.S. Supreme Court, for the first time ever, said the 2nd Amendment protects an individual's right to own a gun for self-defense. It was a historic decision that put real limits on gun control. But gun-rights advocates complain that someone didn't get the memo -- someone named Sonia Sotomayor.
Exhibit A is her decision in January to uphold the conviction of a New York man for possession of fighting sticks called nunchakus. He said the law violated his right to keep and bear arms. But in a unanimous decision joined by Sotomayor, the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals found "it is settled law . . . that the 2nd Amendment does not apply to the states and therefore imposed no limitations on New York's ability to prohibit the possession of nunchakus" -- or, by implication, firearms.
Does that sound like the sort of arrogant verdict you would expect from an activist, liberal, gun-hating judge? It shouldn't. Sotomayor's decision was a model of judicial restraint that was entirely appropriate given the Supreme Court's record.
--excerpted--
0
-
Your lack of attention is striking.
You HAVE no Second Amendment Rights anymore. None of us do. You are absolutely correct lashing out. However...you pick the wrong targets.
Go over to General...there you will find a target rich environment... the typical stupid gun owner that supports gun laws of this or that type.
What is happening in California MUST happen Nationwide ..and more laws to boot.
Why would I want to attempt to make your life easier ? The last, best hope for freedom is for MILLIONS of gun owners becoming unhappy...VERY unhappy. You just happen to live in the territory of the most degenerate segment of humanity ..those willing to give up every semblance of freedom for warm weather and a promise of handouts by the government.
Therefore, you lead with your chin.0 -
This thread was begun with a leading question whose answer becomes obvious to anyone willing to spend 5 minutes reading about Sotomayor's history on the bench.
An article was posted by a left-wing author which ignores the facts of Sotomayor's stance on gun ownership and employs the standard argument of the left - "your guy does it too." The article completely misses the fact that judges must be apolitical - interpret law according to the Constitution, not vice versa.
When the question was answered, backed by facts, the OP launched back into the "your guy does it too" tactic regarding elected state officials, which also was proven to be false.
No amount of smoke screen can obscure the fact that the citizens of California repeatedly allow oppressive legislation to be enacted by putting oppressors into office.
They admit that they kowtow to government out of control, and others should do the same. If citizens do not agree with the way things are done in an area, and they cannot change them at the ballot box, they should MOVE, not demand that everyone knuckle under the way that they have.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Rocklobster
No amount of smoke screen can obscure the fact that the citizens of California repeatedly allow oppressive legislation to be enacted by putting oppressors into office.
They admit that they kowtow to government out of control, and others should do the same. If citizens do not agree with the way things are done in an area, and they cannot change them at the ballot box, they should MOVE, not demand that everyone knuckle under the way that they have.
Not all of us have the luxury to leave, but have to stay and make the best of a difficult situation. Not all of us make such demands, but realize it's up to us to change how things are, if at all possible. It's not up to out-of-state FFLs happily shipping guns to CA, and it's not up to all the wonderful folks here on the boards. We're like a platoon cut off behind enemy lines that knows there is no rescue coming because the rest of the army is pinned down under enemy fire. We have to make the choice to stay and fight or make a run to friendly territory, but realize that the war is still being waged no matter where we end up, that there will be no rest elsewhere.
For me, I must stay...many generations of my family as well as my son are buried here. I would invite other like-minded CA residents to stay informed and act where possible. A couple good places to start are crpa.org and calguns.net. Thank you for your support.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
33 comments