It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Sotomayor Ruled That States Do Not Have to Obey Second Amendment

page: 3
52
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 28 2009 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by ravenshadow13
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


Free speech doesn't kill innocent people.


Ok, I could be wrong here, so please correct me if I am. It seems to me that when the government acts to remove your "right" to bear arms, they are in fact removing a privilege that they had granted you. This is contrary to the actual definition of a "right".

Also, I have noticed that the government, in ALL countries begin with small steps, often voluntary to say....TAX a person for the greater good. Once the TAX is in, they tend to hang on with both hands for all their worth....*cough..income tax...*cough. Income tax which was once a voluntary "War" tax was supposed to be repealed after the need was removed. It wasn't, a new "need" arose and well, you know the rest.

By what stretch of the imagination does one believe that as soon as they are able to find a loophole to begin repealing the US Amendments, that they will stop at just guns? I would suspect that this is simply a gateway to a far more restrictive set of temporary rights "granted" to you by the government.

To say Free speech has never killed innocent people is simply untrue. Ask many of the Chinese who were run over by tanks, or ask the political prisoners in North Korea or ask some of the dissidents in Russia, oh wait..you can't. THEIR DEAD. If they day comes that I get to run a tyranny, I am going to make sure those under MY heel, don't have guns. After all, I wouldn't want to get shot.

..Ex




posted on May, 28 2009 @ 10:11 PM
link   
reply to post by XKrossX
 


I can respect your point up to a point. I hope that you see mine as well, in that it is not a power of the state or any state to alter what is an individual right. Honestly, it does not matter if every person in a particular state except for one person voted to ban all firearms. It still remains that individual's right to own, because the state law is unconstitutional.

For further examination, look at the Jim Crow laws. Fully "legal" in the states that had them. But they were unconstitutional, and therefore illegal. A person of her education, experience and position should really know what the difference between an individual, state and federal power is.

Sorry, but in my opinion, she is not Supreme Court material because of this. Her position of pro or con pales to the lack of basic knowledge of what is really a simple straight forward document.

But if we really want to know, let us ask her: If Obama was to be found ineligible on the question of natural born citizen would she step down as a Supreme since she would have been appointed by a faux president?



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 10:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wyn Hawks

...on another note, in the provided news snippet, the phrase "the second amendment's commandment" smells a bit off...


[edit on 5/28/09 by Wyn Hawks]


The forefathers did state clearly in the Declaration of Independence that they saw these rights as God given unalienable rights.



IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

www.ushistory.org...



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 10:12 PM
link   
The Federal Constitution is just that, a FEDERAL Constitution. It deals with the FEDERAL Government.

The FEDERAL Government has no right to infringe your right to keep and bear arms, as per the Second Amendment to the FEDERAL Constitution.

STATE Governments can infringe your right to keep and bear arms, if said STATE Constitution doesn't have a "Second Amendment" of it's own. I live in New York State, and our Constitution/code of civil liberties has a "Second Amendment" of its own. However, my STATE Constitution can be altered to take away that right, but I don't see that ever happening.

So, yes, she is right. The STATE Governments are not bound to listen to the Second Amendment to the FEDERAL Constitution.



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 10:14 PM
link   
reply to post by MemoryShock
 


No worries, MemoryShock - I know what you're getting at there.

It just bothers me that laws of this nature are usually passed by people who aren't "in the thick" of situations that require protection of that nature.

Not every American has the advantage of a responsive police force to their neighborhoods in times of trouble, nor do they have the advantage of gated communities and/or secret servicemen at their disposal.

But then again - (here comes the conspiracy)....having the news throw out news articles of this caliber is a great way to guage the social responses of the average person, and maybe - just maybe - they'll be able to impliment a better law.

Personally - if such a bill was passed/introduced - I'd be more than compliant for a variety of personal reasons. Sure, I love my country and my rights and everything else....but if this law was a mandate as a transitional procedure until oreder was restored - you bet your buns I'd comply forthwith.

It's my duty as an American Citizen.

I can't take the liberties and deny the responsibilities.

And basically - that's what it boils down to for me.

(*edit to add -and heck - if it WAS that big an issue, I'd just move to a state where such laws had no bearing. Probably better hunting there anyway.)












[edit on 5/28/09 by GENERAL EYES]



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
reply to post by Ferris.Bueller.II
 


I was never shocked by this, and neither were many Americans.

Many of us knew that despite claims to the contrary Obama, and his entire administration were gun-grabbers.

The intention of this post was so that the Obama fans realize the truth about Obama, and his administration.


Obama-maniacs don't care what his nominee for the Supreme Court thinks about the Constitution. They are still punch drunk on the large overdose of kool aid, just like after Clinton took office.



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by XKrossX
In this ruling it says that when in doubt its up to the state to decide how the Second Amendment is applied, right?
Thats a good thing right?

Someone please correct me if I have this wrong.

--Kross--


Well, your wrong. The 2nd amendment is not a states rights issue. Again, here is the 10th amendment.



The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.



Originally posted by Double Eights
STATE Governments can infringe your right to keep and bear arms

Also wrong

The 2nd amendment is clearly "delegated to the United States by the Constitution".

-E-

[edit on 28-5-2009 by MysterE]



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 10:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Double Eights
The Federal Constitution is just that, a FEDERAL Constitution. It deals with the FEDERAL Government.

The FEDERAL Government has no right to infringe your right to keep and bear arms, as per the Second Amendment to the FEDERAL Constitution.

STATE Governments can infringe your right to keep and bear arms, if said STATE Constitution doesn't have a "Second Amendment" of it's own. I live in New York State, and our Constitution/code of civil liberties has a "Second Amendment" of its own. However, my STATE Constitution can be altered to take away that right, but I don't see that ever happening.

So, yes, she is right. The STATE Governments are not bound to listen to the Second Amendment to the FEDERAL Constitution.


Wrong. States cannot infringe on rights granted by the Constitution. All states are bound by the Constitution, and anything not granted or restricted in the Constitution is the territory of the states. Thinking the states do not have to obey federal laws is wrong.



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 10:31 PM
link   
I agree with the logic of the court (and the standing law that has been in place since 1886 on the matter). However, the court did leave it up to the Supreme Court to take up the issue if it wished.


And while acknowledging the possibility that “Heller might be read to question the continuing validity of this principle,” the panel deemed itself bound to follow Presser because it “directly controls, leaving to the Supreme Court the prerogative of overruling its own decisions.” Maloney’s lawyers intend to file a petition for certiorari in late June.


Source

So...she's a crazy liberal that defers to standing law that's been in place over a century, and leaves it up to the states to decide? Isn't that what a Conservative would do?



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 10:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Avenginggecko
...............

So...she's a crazy liberal that defers to standing law that's been in place over a century, and leaves it up to the states to decide? Isn't that what a Conservative would do?


So because there have been laws which were trying to restrict gun ownership by americans for over 100 years it means we must follow these specific laws which undermine our rights?...

You know, slavery was legal, and a "standing law" for a long time too...does it make it right?.....

[edit on 28-5-2009 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 10:43 PM
link   
BTW REAL conservatives and real Republicans would not try to restrict the right of ALL Americans to own and bear arms. I am not talking about the left leaning in power in the Republican party who later on show their true colors, and change parties after they have made changes in the Republican party.

[edit on 28-5-2009 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 10:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Ahabstar
 


Very much I see your point...because applied to the Second Amendment, it is may not be so "offensive"...

However, my logic in the previous post applied to the First Amendment, or the Fourth Amendment is extremely problematic.

reply to post by MysterE
 


And again, you are right on target there.

Thankfully I am from Virginia, and have enjoyed the Second Amendment right in its most pure form, for all the right reasons.

No Supreme Court ruling would overtake my right to bear arms. In fact our State, or Commonwealth to the purists, legislature had to slap local governments on the same principle a few years ago. A local goverments laws regarding firearms were could not supercede the state law. The same principle is definitely at the root here. No State of The United States of America can choose to disregard an Amendment of the US Constitution and remain a State of same.

A star for both of you from me for good critical thinking skills.

--Kross--



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 10:46 PM
link   

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.


Come to think of it: "the right to bear arms" Why would anyone want bear arms?

Silly americans. You've obviously misunderstood your constitution. How happy you must be that this woman is reinterpreting it for you.

Joking aside, this disgraceful steamrolling is set to continue on and on. I don't see why they dont just rip the damn thing up and get it over with.



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 10:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Lazyninja
 


Because if they do that now, when most Americans still own firearrms they would initiate a new civil war with most Americans still armed. they don't want that, they want the least resistance possible, hence they dismantle the Republic slowly.



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 10:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lazyninja
Come to think of it: "the right to bear arms" Why would anyone want bear arms?

Silly americans. You've obviously misunderstood your constitution. How happy you must be that this woman is reinterpreting it for you.


It's our right!

-E-



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 10:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by MysterE
The 2nd amendment is clearly "delegated to the United States by the Constitution".

-E-

[edit on 28-5-2009 by MysterE]




Originally posted by Ferris.Bueller.II

Wrong. States cannot infringe on rights granted by the Constitution. All states are bound by the Constitution, and anything not granted or restricted in the Constitution is the territory of the states. Thinking the states do not have to obey federal laws is wrong.


You both lack a clear understanding of the United States Constitution.

The Bill of Rights is restrictions on the FEDERAL Government, not the STATE Governments. The Second Amendment guarantees that the newly created Federal Government would not get involved with gun laws. Each State Constitution already had a clause in their Constitution/laws guaranteeing their citizens they wouldn't infringe upon their right to keep and bear arms.

The Federal Constitution did not have such clause, and thus the Second Amendment. If a State Amends their Constitution to outlaw guns, it has the power to do so. If the Federal Constitution is amended to outlaw guns, it has the power to do so.

Constitutional Law 101 folks.



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 11:01 PM
link   
reply to post by MysterE
 


He was being ironic with those statements.

He didn't mean it literally.



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 11:01 PM
link   


BTW, incase you didn't know the main reason why our foreafathers put this as a right for ALL Americans was to defend ourselves against a dictatorial government, and this government is turning dictatorial by the day.
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


I agree, but the government has already far exceeded the boundaries of "By the people and for the people", yet we've done nothing, will continue to do nothing, until there is nothing.



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 11:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Double Eights
...................

The Federal Constitution did not have such clause, and thus the Second Amendment. If a State Amends their Constitution to outlaw guns, it has the power to do so. If the Federal Constitution is amended to outlaw guns, it has the power to do so.

Constitutional Law 101 folks.


They certainly do not have such right, and if they do so, the forefathers of this nation clearly deliniated what Americans should do, and that it is their right to do so....


That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

www.ushistory.org...

But thank you for trying to twist away the fact that our rights should not be changed. You sound just like the gun-grabbing politicians...




[edit on 28-5-2009 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 11:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
reply to post by MysterE
 


He was being ironic with those statements.

He didn't mean it literally.

I know, I just thought this thread needed a splash of humor

-E-



new topics

top topics



 
52
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join