Sotomayor Ruled That States Do Not Have to Obey Second Amendment

Sotomayor Ruled That States Do Not Have to Obey Second Amendment

www.cnsnews.com

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.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Again we find that Obama is going against every promise he has made. Now he nominates to the Supreme Court Sonia Sotomayor, who ruled in january of this year in the Maloney v. Cuomo case that "the Second Amendment does not protect individuals from having their right to keep and bear arms restricted by state governments."

Amazing, this woman has clearly claimed that she has no respect for the Second Amendment, and be sure with all the nominees that OBama has chosen that our right to keep and bear arms IS going to be infringed upon by this administration.


www.cnsnews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 28-5-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

Well, I am now officially ashame of this woman that actually is a Puertorican like me that have not respect for the Constitution of this nation that happens to be the one we have back home in PR.

This woman with those "opinions" should never be considered into a position of the supreme court.

Time to start your e-mails to congress to stop her appointment to supreme court.

She is nothing but another piece of trash.

the Second Amendment does not protect individuals from having their right to keep and bear arms restricted by state governments."

Restricted is a much different term then "prohibited".

I certainly think that a citizens right to have the capacity to defend themselves and their homes does not translate into a free for all when it comes to gun ownership.

Seriously...there are very relevant reasons why ththe idea of restriction is a relevant topic. One cannot predict that all gun owners will demonstrate the responsibility necessary when keeping, storing and using a tool that has the potential to end life in a second.

I have known people that I wouldn't trust with a sharpened pencil much less a firearm...and in todays world of advanced technology it should be noted that the 2nd Amendment was designed to guarentee the right of an individual to harbor the capacity to defend oneself with force if needed...not to hold a firearm for the sake of it.

A very relevant context, in my opinion...

Can we please have a small test for all elected officials and appointed positions in this country that you must be able to read and comprehend the US Constitution before being considered for the job?

I really do not think I am asking for too much here.


But to give this woman a freaking clue, A citizen of a state shall enjoy the freedoms of the the citizens of several states. In other words, it is the Constitutional limit to State's Powers. Since the 2nd Amendment is a Constitutional right retained by the people, the State nor Federal Government has zero authority to countermand the 2nd Amendment period.



Honestly, I just ask for that one small test.

Why is it that people get mad when states get their rights taken away and replaced by federal control with it comes to the amendments about most things, but when it comes to gun control, it's not okay for the states to decide?

I mean, I don't think she's right about this. I'm just making a general observation. Don't most people (not me) want MORE state control and less federal control?

Originally posted by MemoryShock

Restricted is a much different term then "prohibited".

I certainly think that a citizens right to have the capacity to defend themselves and their homes does not translate into a free for all when it comes to gun ownership.

To restrict means to infringe upon, and the Second Amendment makes it clear there shall not be any infringement upon our second amendment right.

Shall we see what infringement means?

Infringe:

infringement - violation: an act that disregards an agreement or a right; "he claimed a violation of his rights under the Fifth Amendment"
infringement - misdemeanor: a crime less serious than a felony

wordnetweb.princeton.edu...

You might think whatever you want, and you might want to have restrictions upon our Second amendment, or any other, but the forefathers made it clear, no infringement means no laws to restrict WHATSOEVER this right, or any others...


[edit on 28-5-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

Originally posted by MemoryShock
..................
I have known people that I wouldn't trust with a sharpened pencil much less a firearm...and in todays world of advanced technology it should be noted that the 2nd Amendment was designed to guarentee the right of an individual to harbor the capacity to defend oneself with force if needed...not to hold a firearm for the sake of it.

A very relevant context, in my opinion...

Let me respond to this statement directly.

Do tell us and when does one have the need to have a weapon, is it ok according to you for one to buy a gun when a thief is already breaking into your home?... I would think that is too late already to try to get a firearm for protection, and 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.

People buy firearms to protect themselves, which means to avoid being raped, killed, harmed, and this includes if a thief breaks into your home.

Where is the sense, according to you, to buy a gun AFTER you get attacked?... Firearms are there to protect yorself, not to buy them, and have them AFTER being attacked...

If you, or anyone else don like the Second Amendment, well that is your problem, but it is very clear that the forefathers meant there should be no restrictions whatsoever on this right, or any other.



[edit on 28-5-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

Originally posted by MemoryShock

the Second Amendment does not protect individuals from having their right to keep and bear arms restricted by state governments."

Restricted is a much different term then "prohibited".

I certainly think that a citizens right to have the capacity to defend themselves and their homes does not translate into a free for all when it comes to gun ownership.

Seriously...there are very relevant reasons why ththe idea of restriction is a relevant topic. One cannot predict that all gun owners will demonstrate the responsibility necessary when keeping, storing and using a tool that has the potential to end life in a second.

I have known people that I wouldn't trust with a sharpened pencil much less a firearm...and in todays world of advanced technology it should be noted that the 2nd Amendment was designed to guarentee the right of an individual to harbor the capacity to defend oneself with force if needed...not to hold a firearm for the sake of it.

A very relevant context, in my opinion...

That's great, it seems that you feel like you have the right to judge a persons right to firearm ownership based on how you interpret their intelligence or lack there of.

These people that you speak of, did you administer some sort of test to determine that they are unfit and or are you an expert in this field?

Let me tell you, I have been to crime scenes where the victim would not be in a pool of their own blood if NYC had a system that was fair to the common individual.

It seems that you like systems like NYC has and in a nutshell only the rich and connected can own a firearm as the Police decide if you will be granted a permit based on who you know and your income, after the rich and connected the next group with guns are the criminals who prey on the defenseless middle class.

The middle class are told to go to hell when the try and get a permit which routinely takes a year.

What the Obamabots fail to see is that this administration is working full time to destroy this country and they are sowing the seeds of civil war, I can see people like you lining up to take up arms and becoming law enforcement so that you can try and relieve us of ours.

All I can say is that it will not be easy.

Even Bush in all his nastiness and corruption never dared tread where Obama is going.

I would dare say that it is the gun grabbers and their followers who pose a threat to the peace not the other way around.

You implied that self defense and the second amendment have nothing to do with gun ownership, so may I ask just how is an 80 year old supposed to defend herself from a rapist that broke into her home and is planing to rape and kill her?

I close with that your argument is that of a coward, you want me to trade my security for your peace of mind, you want Americans to give up their only protections against criminals so that you can feel better.

Nice.....

reply to post by MemoryShock

Restricted is a much different term then "prohibited".

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The key term is infringed.
Restricting is an infringement.




[edit on 28-5-2009 by GuyverUnit I]

reply to post by GuyverUnit I


Apparenlty some people think they have the RIGHT to dictate what rights should be kept intact, and which shouldn't.

A shame really that they don't understand what a RIGHT is...

A Right is different than a PRIVILEDGE, and as samhouston1886 said there are cities like NYC in which the right to own and bear arms has been made only a PRIVILEDGE for the rich with contacts within government.

The current admjinistration is trying to make NYC the rule, and not the exception with the new bills they are trying to pass which would be INFRINGING upon our Second Amendment right.

[edit on 28-5-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

Originally posted by ravenshadow13

I mean, I don't think she's right about this. I'm just making a general observation. Don't most people (not me) want MORE state control and less federal control?

No, I think you are not understanding the basis of having state control versus total federal control.

BTW, the Bill of Rights does not say that neither the state, or the feds can restrict any of those rights as were written by the forefathers of the Republic.

But of course TPTB have been trying to rewrite the law to restrict these rights as much as they can, and this has been happening for a very long time.

[edit on 28-5-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


Right but what about all those unenumerated rights that are being restricted? What about the controversies over freedom of speech if it can be harmful to others?

People have the right to protect themselves. But not if they are criminals or super unstable. That's how it should be. Otherwise people die. And I'd rather have people angry that their amendment was interpreted "wrong" (whereas others are mad about all sorts of other Constitutional rights like marriage, the death penalty, etc), than have people die from guns.

America has a problem with guns.
I'm not for total federal control but I think that guns are dangerous no matter where you live.

Interesting terminology they imployed there...what leapt out at me was:

...states do not have to obey the Second Amendment’s commandment*....

(I was never aware that the Bill of Rights were commandments.)

No doubt this article is meant to inflame the passions.

Originally posted by ravenshadow13
reply to post by ElectricUniverse

 

Right but what about all those unenumerated rights that are being restricted? What about the controversies over freedom of speech if it can be harmful to others?

People have the right to protect themselves. But not if they are criminals or super unstable. That's how it should be. Otherwise people die. And I'd rather have people angry that their amendment was interpreted "wrong" (whereas others are mad about all sorts of other Constitutional rights like marriage, the death penalty, etc), than have people die from guns.

America has a problem with guns.
I'm not for total federal control but I think that guns are dangerous no matter where you live.

Wrong, if a person is mentally unstable that person should be in a mental institution, instead of trying to restrict firearms.

Yes, there are other problems happening too, but this thread is about this particular right, this woman which is the latest nominee by Obama is another Democrat gun-grabber.

America does not have a problem with guns, look at Britain, they banned citizens from owning firearms, and firearm crime has risen 40% if not more since then. The same thing is happening in Australia and every country where citizens are being restricted, or banned from owning firearms.

BTW, you should know by now that the DHS, and Janet Napolitano is labeling real Americans as possible terrorists, so any restrictions they try to put would ban ANY AMERICAN who wants to protect the second Amendment, or "FEAR COMMUNISM", or are not in agreement with decisions made by the government.

These new laws they are trying to pass with registration, in which people have to pass a test, which the gun-grabbers would dictate, and which would ban people who are completely stable but want to defend the second amendment, or have second thoughts about decisions made by the feds.

[edit on 28-5-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

BTW Raven, perhaps you missed watching this even though it has been posted several times.

This is a video about the largest peaceful demonstration in the history of Britain, that the Brits did, and their main concern is that they have been banned from owning firearms, and yet crime has INCREASED, the same with crimes with firearms which has increased 40% if not more.

www.youtube.com...

[edit on 28-5-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

Last year the Supreme Court voted down an issue (I forget what) concerning the 2nd Ammenment, the vote came 5 to 4 in favor of the 2nd ammendment. Too close for comfort. I know this judge won't change that much, but the next one certainly will.

BTW Raven, why is it that crime with firearms is highest in the U.S. in states that HAVE BANNED, or heavily restricted FIREARMS?...

The anwser should be obvious by now... The problems with guns you are talking about are happening in states where there are heavy restrictions, and even bans on firearms.

Criminals do not normally buy guns from a legal store, they buy guns from the Black market.

[edit on 28-5-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


That's because of a human flaw. Humans are violent. I don't think they should have guns. It's just a cool weapon used to kill other people. If you really want to kill someone, you should battle it out the hard way with knives and rocks. Guns are too easy.

People never complain about how violent we are. They never complain about the fact that violence is generally an everyday thing and when someone is shot on the news, it's not a big deal.

People only speak up when someone wants to make sure they're qualified to handle a murder weapon.

Done with this thread.

I want a nominee that supports Second Ammendment.


Luckily, her nomination wouldnt change anything as Souter rules as I believe Souter ruled to uphold the DC Handgun ban. (Please correct me on this if I'm wrong.)