Sotomayor's views on guns prompt questions

Status
Not open for further replies.

Liebling:-)))

Sussi *7.7.86 - 18.6.09*
Premium Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2004
Messages
31,022
Reaction score
9
Sotomayor's views on guns prompt questions
Gun rights activists strongly oppose her nomination to Supreme Court



Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor said 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.

Democratic Sen. Mark Udall of Colorado said Sotomayor told him during a private meeting that she considers the 2008 ruling that struck down a Washington, D.C., handgun ban as settled law that would guide her decisions in future cases. In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court held that individuals have a constitutional right to guns.

But the statement gave little comfort to gun rights activists. Conservative Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., said that earlier in the week, Sotomayor told him in a similar closed-door session that she stood by an appellate court decision she signed this year that said the Second Amendment protection from curbs on the right to bear arms applied only to federal laws — not state or local ones. That ruling, Maloney v. Cuomo, left it up to the Supreme Court to decide whether the rights recognized in the Heller case applied throughout the country

The dueling statements called attention to a simmering and politically fraught debate over gun rights that transcends partisan lines. The issue is a tricky one for many Democrats who, like Udall, hail from conservative-leaning states in the South and West and often find themselves at odds with their party's liberal leaders' strong support for gun control measures. They're under intense pressure from gun rights advocates to oppose Sotomayor's nomination, so pinning her down on the topic is a major concern.

Hostile to gun rights?
Gun rights activists have cited the Maloney decision in accusing Sotomayor of being hostile to gun rights. In the case, Sotomayor and two other judges on the 2nd Circuit appeals court upheld a New York state law banning the possession of "chuka sticks." They said they were bound by an 1886 Supreme Court ruling — not by Heller, which didn't address the question of whether the Second Amendment applied to states.

Udall said he asked Sotomayor about her view of the Second Amendment during their visit.

"Clearly she spoke to the fact that settled law is just that, and the Heller case has been considered by the court, and she sees that as the law, and she will work off of what the court decided as other cases may come to the court's attention," Udall said.

DeMint also questioned Sotomayor about gun rights in a meeting earlier this week, and later criticized her for refusing to say the Second Amendment "protects a fundamental right that applies to all Americans." He said Sotomayor's statement on Heller "doesn't tell us much" about her view of the issue given the position she took this year in Maloney.

Questions on Sotomayor's gun views - White House- msnbc.com

Continue to next 2nd page in my next post.
 
NRA not satisfied

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.

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, called her assertion "a meaningless phrase without more context."

The National Rifle Association also wasn't satisfied.


"We still have serious concerns about positions she's taken in the past, and the answer as far as following precedent is somewhat meaningless, because it does not answer the question of where she stands on the fundamental right of law-abiding Americans to keep and bear arms," said Chris W. Cox, the NRA's chief lobbyist.

Gun advocates opposing Sotomayor
The Supreme Court has applied to state and local laws only those constitutional rights it views as "fundamental," and could consider as early as this fall whether gun rights qualify. The NRA last week appealed a federal appellate court ruling that upheld Chicago's handgun ban on the grounds that Second Amendment protections for gun owners apply only to federal laws.

The Gun Owners of America, another gun rights group, has already come out in strong opposition to Sotomayor and is urging senators to vote against her confirmation.

"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."

Sotomayor's statement Thursday didn't disturb proponents of gun control measures, even though they were vehemently opposed to the Heller decision.

Paul Helmke of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence said Sotomayor was "doing what justices are supposed to do" — adhering to existing law and precedent unless there's a good reason not to. He said he was confident the judge, with her urban background and experience as a prosecutor in Manhattan, would be an ally to those working to reduce gun violence.

"She's seen what happens when you make it too easy for dangerous people to get guns," Helmke said.

Questions on Sotomayor's gun views - White House- msnbc.com
 
NRA rocks...

If Sotomayor is sworn as judge then we still have more conservative judge than liberal judge, she's just replace the liberal judge into other liberal judge so supreme court is still 5-4 are conservative.

I don't believe in gun control that harm to good citizens or gun owners, like I said in past.

I'm hope that republican or pro-gun rights democrats will takeover congress in next year and Obama wouldn't have any choice but appoint the conservative or moderate judge who is pro-gun rights.
 
"...Paul Helmke of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence said Sotomayor was "doing what justices are supposed to do" — adhering to existing law and precedent unless there's a good reason not to. He said he was confident the judge, with her urban background and experience as a prosecutor in Manhattan, would be an ally to those working to reduce gun violence...."

Why should "her urban background and experience as a prosecutor in Manhattan" determine our Second Amendment rights? Most gun owners in the USA are not urban gang bangers firing stolen guns while committing crimes.
 
Not as long as the number of innocent lives being lost to gun deaths is at the rate it is.
Then they should focus on gun safety education, and stiffer and more sure penalties for crimes committed with guns. Preventing the majority of law-abiding citizens access to guns and ammo just makes it easier for criminals and tyrants to get the upper hand.
 
Then they should focus on gun safety education, and stiffer and more sure penalties for crimes committed with guns. Preventing the majority of law-abiding citizens access to guns and ammo just makes it easier for criminals and tyrants to get the upper hand.

And the efforts of the NRA simply increase the chances of the shootings we have heard about all too recently.
 
Then they should focus on gun safety education, and stiffer and more sure penalties for crimes committed with guns. Preventing the majority of law-abiding citizens access to guns and ammo just makes it easier for criminals and tyrants to get the upper hand.

How so, exactly?

Yup, true and this liberal member never understand about role of gun owners. :roll:
 
Everybody knows what I'm going to say on this issue so no need for me to say it again

:fruit:
 
It's obvious, Reba.
No, it isn't.

Right off the bat, three of the recent shooters who have been in the news were convicted felons; they shouldn't have had guns. The current laws are not being enforced.
 
The NRA is never satisfied.

Neither are the anti-gun people and organizations.

they should both start working together to fix the problems instead of working against each other.


decent people shouldn't have to be denied the right to own a firearm regaurdless of Caliber or Magazine Capacity.

a five day waiting period isn't all as bad as many fear. it helps to make sure the person buying the gun isn't a criminal or mentally unstable.
(being licensed to carry i don't have to wait anyway, just drop the money for the gun and bring it home.)

the criminals don't follow the laws and get around them reguardless. so the anti-gun agenda hurts the people that will be using a gun for safety, protection, hunting, recreation and so on.

meanwhile there are many flaws that need to be fixed listed in this post
 
No, it isn't.

Right off the bat, three of the recent shooters who have been in the news were convicted felons; they shouldn't have had guns. The current laws are not being enforced.

and there are holes in the laws. criminals get their guns from robberies, street arms dealers and shady licensed dealers

if a gun owner properly locks the gun in a safe or gun vault. the guns the will not end up on the street if it is stolen. licensed dealers that are shadey need to be addressed.
 
they should both start working together to fix the problems instead of working against each other.


decent people shouldn't have to be denied the right to own a firearm regaurdless of Caliber or Magazine Capacity.

a five day waiting period isn't all as bad as many fear. it helps to make sure the person buying the gun isn't a criminal or mentally unstable.
(being licensed to carry i don't have to wait anyway, just drop the money for the gun and bring it home.)

the criminals don't follow the laws and get around them reguardless. so the anti-gun agenda hurts the people that will be using a gun for safety, protection, hunting, recreation and so on.

meanwhile there are many flaws that need to be fixed listed in this post
Some good points at your link, especially about stolen guns. Not reporting stolen gun shipments is scary.

I too, have a license to carry concealed, and it does expedite gun purchases.
 
and there are holes in the laws. criminals get their guns from robberies, street arms dealers and shady licensed dealers

if a gun owner properly locks the gun in a safe or gun vault. the guns the will not end up on the street if it is stolen. licensed dealers that are shadey need to be addressed.
Yes, people need to keep their guns secure. Some people are sooooo careless!

Shady dealers do need to be dealt with. The trustworthy dealers of good reputation should support that.

In general, I would like to see less tampering with law-abiding citizens' rights, and more clamping down on the criminals who use, steal, or illegally distribute guns, and more tracking of stolen guns (including wholesale shipments).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top