Sotomayor Ruled That States Do Not Have to Obey Second Amendment
Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor ruled in January 2009 that states do not have to obey the Second Amendment’s commandment that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
In Maloney v. Cuomo, Sotomayor signed an opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that said the Second Amendment does not protect individuals from having their right to keep and bear arms restricted by state governments.
The opinion said that the Second Amendment only restricted the federal government from infringing on an individual's right to keep and bear arms. As justification for this position, the opinion cited the 1886 Supreme Court case of Presser v. Illinois.
“It is settled law, however, that the Second Amendment applies only to limitations the federal government seeks to impose on this right,” said the opinion. Quoting Presser, the court said, “it is a limitation only upon the power of Congress and the national government, and not upon that of the state.”
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=48718
Bill of Rights
I always thought the Bill of Rights only applied to the Federal government.
I've never figured out why the militias and the states can't arm themselves with ANY military grade weapons and WMD but for some reason the Federal government can restrict their arms.
She's wrongfully understanding the words of the Constitution and
the inalienable Bill of Rights which are applicable to the Individual and the States.
Big deal.
The ninth circuit as recently as last month ruled the exact opposite, which sets up a SCOTUS showdown on conflicting rulings between jurisdictions.
Unfortunately we have to
Unfortunately we have to CLAIM OUR RIGHTS.
If you dont claim your rights, it is presumed that you gave them up. This is why Miller v U.S. says:
"The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime." - Miller v. U.S., 230 F 2d 486, 489.
For example, if you get pulled over WITHOUT A LICENSE and the first thing you say to the officer is "I Claim my right to travel" a recorder is nice, then later in court, if there is an incident, you can play the recording that you claimed your right to travel, and the officer deprived you of that right and violated USC Title 18, part one Ch.13, 242:
"Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death."
I keep reading about these
I keep reading about these laws, but is there any recent examples of people successfully using these statutes in their defense in court?
Depends on your definition of "successful"
If it's go to jail or lose their case, there's plenty of recent examples of success.
Explore Orthodox Christianity
It is simple
just don't let them take them from you. If we are not entitled to the second ammendment by the federal government, we are not entitled to pay their asses taxes. Don't let them take them, and make that your final answer.
Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must. like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it.-Thomas Paine
The R3volution requires action, not observation!!!!
It's already gone everywhere pretty much
Infringed means encroached upon. A gun permit is infringement, a waiting period is infringement, bans on particular types of arms are infringements, the people's right to keep and bear has ABSOLUTELY been infringed. If the 2nd said, The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be taken away, then we could say "don't let them take it!", but they already have taken it away just about everywhere.
I have the right to carry my sidearm openly everywhere I go except on other's property if they don't approve, but I'd get arrested and charged with a felony if I did. Is that infringement? hell yeah. I'm madder than hell about gun laws because every damn one of the infringes upon my right. It feels a whole lot more like a priviledge.
Explore Orthodox Christianity
I have the right according to the 2nd amendment to bear "arms"
That means I can bear arms of any sort including any devises that I can afford. If everyone in this country had these devises I bet the government would would be very much more responsive to our demands for liberty.
They goveren by force , we accept their dominance because they over power us through their destruction of our 2nd amendment rights.
The same rights that we empowered them to protect!
"Since 1789 the only government on Earth that has the power to crush the American people`s liberties across the board is the government of the United States"
Robert Higgs
In a debate about this
In a debate about this subject, my brother asked if it was okay for individuals to build and store nuclear missiles in their backyard. If not, why not? I was stumped on how to respond.
So she doesn't like guns?
So she doesn't like guns? Man, one would expect that since she's a woman, she'd like them. (No offense to anybody) :)
She can not like them all she wants but she better
defend the individual right to bear or her and anyone else confiscating will be rudely upset by the outrage of the people!
"Hell is truth seen too late...duty neglected in its season."- Tryon Edwards
"Human beings with love and compassion are some of the most beautiful creatures in the universe... Those without are a plague on us all."
Presumably,she would vote to strike down any federal restriction
as she is up for the FEDERAL court. (actually, I'm not sure I disagree with her on the state issue) I wouldn't hold my breath (waiting for her to affirm second amendment rights at the federal level) though. She is just an over achieving ass-kisser.
then the states
could restrict first amendment rights as well?
"The two weakest arguments for any issue on the House floor are moral and constitutional"
Ron Paul
Yep, but bear in mind
That most if not all state constitutions are very similar to the US constitution. In many cases such a constitution was a prerequisite for admission to the Union. There is a theory that the 14th (I think) amendment 'incorporated' the bill of rights into the states (but not all of them apparently). On at least one occasion the court has ruled that certain rights (like freedom of speech) are so essential to a free society that they are protected from from state abridgment. I used to think that 'incorporation' and Federal protections from state government was a neat idea - till I saw what a Leviathan the FedGov had become. Better to vote with your feet. There are fifty states. If they weren't under the heel of the one-size-fits all FedGov, you could probably find one that suited you fine.
Isn't that what you would expect from a La Raza member?
Supreme Court Nominee Sotomayor Belongs To A Subversive Group And Should Be Rejectedl
May 28, 2009
By Vincent Gioia
With the disclosure that Obama's U.S. Supreme Court nominee, Sonia Sotomayor, is a member of La Raza, it's appropriate to look at what La Raza stands for to understand Sotomayor's mindset as she decides critical cases on the court.
According to the American Bar Association, Sotomayor is a member of the NCLR (National Council of La Raza), which bills itself as the largest national Hispanic civil rights and advocacy organization in the United States but take a look at what the organization really advocates.
To reinforce the importance of this association note that Sotomayor has said "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." The remark was made in a 2001 speech at the University of California's Berkeley School of Law. The lecture was published the following year in the Berkeley La Raza Law Journal.
It is not an overstatement to say Sotomayor's approach to decisions of the Court would be influenced significantly by her roots which is not the asset Obama would like us to believe.
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich wrote: "Imagine a judicial nominee said 'my experience as a white man makes me better than a Latina woman.
http://www.rightsidenews.com/200905284941/editorial/supreme-...
Can someone please sue La
Can someone please sue La Raza for discrimination or whatever would be suffered by a white superiority group. I've always thought these Hispanic and black pride groups and college majors promoted racism and kept their members alienated from society and furthering their careers.
This comment is outrageous.
"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." So much for civil rights and our never-ending quest to stamp out discrimination. That statement alone should disqualify her for a position on the highest court in the land.
deucer: ..or any other court of law as well.
She is a racist bigot.
Hypocrisy and contradiction are mainstream now.
Like Gonzales
She is better able to help usher in this NAU
WE ARE GOING TO WIN!
___.---.___
.' ( ) '.
) /)' '( )
',_( ';-;'\_,'
|-|
(")