Gun Owners Say Rabidly Anti-Gun Sotomayor is Unacceptable

By Gun Owners of America , A No-Compromise Gun Rights Organization - May 29, 2009

Icoemail3
Comments(13) | (0)
Unless you've taken a very long Memorial Day vacation, you've no doubt heard the big news.

President Obama has picked an anti-gun radical to replace Justice David Souter on the Supreme Court.

Obama's pick is Judge Sonia Sotomayor, who is currently on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second District. There she has racked up an anti-Second Amendment record and has displayed contempt for the rule of law under the Constitution.

The Heller decision put the Supreme Court in support of the Constitutional protection of the individual right to keep and bear arms. Sotomayor, a politically correct lover of centralized government power (as long as she is part of the power elite), immediately went into counter-attack mode against the Heller decision.

Sotomayor was part of a three-judge panel earlier this year which ruled in Maloney v. Cuomo that the Second Amendment does not apply to the states. As she and her cohorts claimed, the Supreme Court has not yet incorporated the states under the Second Amendment. Until then, she believes, the Second only applies to the District of Columbia.

This is pure judicial arrogance -- something Sotomayor relishes (as long as she is one of the ruling judges). In fact, protection of the right to keep and bear arms was a major objective for enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment, as recently freed slaves were being disarmed and terrorized in their neighborhoods.

But Sotomayor disdains this important right of individuals, as indicated by an earlier opinion from 2004. In United States v. Sanchez-Villar, she stated that "the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right."

Sotomayor has held very anti-gun views, even as far back as the 1970s. Fox Cable News reported yesterday that in her senior thesis at Princeton University, she wrote that America has a "deadly obsession" with guns and that the Second Amendment does not guarantee an individual right to firearms ownership.

Sotomayor's Second Amendment views go hand in hand with her politically correct views on the law and the role of judges.

In a speech given at Duke University in 2005, she made it abundantly clear that judges are involved in making policy. Realizing that this did not sound very judicial (even though most judges act on this basis), Sotomayor tried to laugh off her brazen admission: "I know this is on tape and I should never say that, [audience laughing], because we don't make law -- I know. Um, okay. I know, I'm not promoting it, I'm not advocating it." The audience continued to laugh. They got the joke.

But Sotomayor's joke will be on us and our liberties if she gets confirmed to the Supreme Court. And that is why we need to start contacting our Senators early and often, urging them to vote against this dangerous nomination.
This content is inappropriate
Loading

Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content, so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.

Explanation:


Regarding Article
OPINION: Gun Owners Say Rabidly Anti-Gun Sotomayor is Unacceptable

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • zman
    She is totally unacceptalle

    If she gets in it is just one more step to goverment control.
    That is why we the people must stand up and fight for all our freedoms
    They want us free from guns so it will be easy to come in and take control of your homes next.

    - zmanUS May 29, 2009 2:37PM

    Reply to this Recommend (2) Icon flag

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • KentMcManigal
    The mask is off

    We are living in "Post-Constitutional America". It is time to recognize that rights do not come from government, and are not ever really protected by government.

    It is time to grow up and exercise and DEFEND your own rights instead of depending upon a criminal collective to do your job for you. It has always been your responsibility, and handing it over to government was a near-fatal mistake which is now coming home to roost.

    - KentMcManigal May 29, 2009 8:37PM

    Reply to this Recommend (3) Icon flag

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • Stark Raving Sane
    Are all gun supporters high?

    Okay, I'm a moderate, and I do believe that the second amendment speaks to a right to own guns . Common sense dictates that limits are in the best interest of all, gun owners or not. But if I do decide to get a pistol for target shooting or a shotgun for, well never mind, it's a fundamental right. Like the right to life (universal health insurance ), or the right to free speech (make a fool of yourself on talk radio - for money ), but I don't believe for a minute that it's possible to assemble a Supreme Court which would invalidate the fundamentals of the Constitution.

    Because political control of the government tends to swing from right to left, it would take a hundred year rule by anti-gun radicals to actually pass the bills, get them signed and have the Supreme Court uphold new law that effectively changes the Constitution.

    It would be far easier to pass a Constitutional amendment repealing the second amendment. That effort would most likely bankrupt the NRA with media buys. But relax folks, the majority only wants to stop the silliness and make sure that criminals don't get their hands on guns. Slippery slope arguments have been around forever and frankly just don't hold water.

    If you believe that the right to bear arms was codified so that a hostile government couldn't take control of America, you are, by definition, thinking like an anarchist at a minimum, and a terrorist at the outer limits of logic. Stop it. Nobody but Bank of America wants your crummy little house. Yes, Sotomayor is tough on crime , but that's a good thing....unless you think the golden rule is "quaint".

    The American system begins with the notion that all rights are granted by our creator to the individual. From there, the people assign responsibility to protect them, and their rights to the government (consent of the governed). Independence Day is almost here, so relax, thank God you live in a great and powerful country which allows you to go out to the gravel pit and plink at tin cans with your Winchester or Glock. BTW, when buying your next gun support your neighbors by buying American.

    And support Judge Sotomayor for confirmation. Most likely she has your best interests in mind, and most likely isn't going seduce Roberts, Alito, Thomas and Scalia into taking a "liberal" stance.

    Let me be the first to wish you a happy Independence Day.

    - Stark Raving SaneUS May 30, 2009 2:26AM

    Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

    • KentMcManigal
      "Common sense" is often wrong

      Fundamental rights are not subject to limits. That would be a "privilege"; not a "right".

      The supreme court has already chosen to invalidate government protections of many fundamental rights. Fortunately, rights do not come from government or The Bill of Rights. If the Second Amendment were repealed, the right to own and to carry weapons would still exist just as strongly as ever, just as it does in states, cities, and countries around the world whose criminal governments have chosen to violate that right. The violation of individual rights is a litmus test to see if a particular government is legitimate or not. None pass.

      A "right" can not overlap someone else's rights. That is why there is no right to "universal healthcare ". In order to provide that, you must violate other people's right to keep their own proporty (through "taxation"), and violate the rights of the doctor's to run their business as they see fit.

      There is nothing you can do to keep "criminals" from getting guns . All such "laws" only affect the honest person. This is why all gun "laws" cause crime rates to increase. Aggressors on both sides of the badge love unarmed targets.

      The right to "keep" (to own) and "bear" (to carry) arms is a basic human right. A right can be respected or it can be violated. It can not be legitimately "limited", "rationed", "licensed" or otherwise infringed, regardless of what control freaks may say.

      It is like the false statement about not having a right to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater. You DO have that right, but you will also be held accountable if you do it and cause harm.

      You have an undeniable human right to own and to carry, everywhere you go, any type of weapon you wish, in whatever manner suits you without asking anyone's permission. Ever. You do NOT have a right to use that weapon to harm innocent people. Will that offend anti-liberty types? Yes, but since there is no right to not be offended (such a right would necessarily overlap other peoples' REAL rights), that is just too bad.

      - KentMcManigal June 1, 2009 1:46PM

      Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

      Thank You for your Comment

      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

    • richardsonkr
      We are not high, we are not crazy.

      We just understand that we have rights, and these rights are important. We also understand that just because "common sense" dictates that our rights be overruled, does not mean that they should be. A few years back, a big deal was made over illegal wire tapping. It was a common sense part of the War on Terror. It also violated the Constitution. Gun/arms control, of any kind, is absolutely wrong for the same reason. Notice I added "arms" in there, and not just guns . There is a reason for this. The Second Amendment, the right to bear arms, is what keeps all of the others around. We cannot rely on the government to stay honest. The government must be afraid of the people, NOT vice versa. For this reason, the right to own military grade not only firearms but ALL arms, is not to be infringed. Taking our Constitutional rights away and justifying it with "safety" is absolutely wrong, whether it's wiretapping or disarmament.

      Now, safety cannot be completely disregarded, of course. The way to maintain order is to punish harshly those who use their arms inapropriately. The reason, the real reason, that the liberal leadership wants to restrict our rights is because they want to abolish the death penalty and harsher punishment. Note, I am not an advocate of cruel and unusual punishment, as that would be Unconstitutional, but the death penalty is neither cruel nor unusual, and the Constitution specifies that it must be both to be forbidden. Taking away our weapons to justify abolishing punishment is logical, but not Constitutional, and must be stopped. The same is true of attempting to promote healthy living. If they are going to be paying for your health care , they have a right to dictate how you live. I say this is unacceptable. If I want to drink, smoke, and eat my way into an early grave, that is my RIGHT, no matter how logical it may be for the government to stop it.

      - richardsonkrUS June 1, 2009 9:01PM

      Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

      Thank You for your Comment

      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • jfh
    stark raving sane:

    First, a commendation for a well-written comment--seriously. Unfortunately, the devil is in the details--or, as I like to say, in your a priori assumptions.

    I note that the thrust of your argument is that the SC will not invalidate the "fundamentals" of the Constitution. However, until Heller, the individual right to own a firearm was not codified. That ruling was based on a 5-4 decision--so one swing vote could have kept that fundamental right from being codified. In the (near) future court rulings coming from the current cases (incorporation, regulation limits)moving forward, one swing vote may well further limit the individual right.

    Then, there is that continuing willingness of your rhetoric to conflate metaphor with reality. Your claim that slippery slope arguments don't hold water simply doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Perhaps the most clearcut example of that are the NYC firearms laws. Residents there have been subjected to continuing infringement over about 120 years, IIRC.

    Then there is that "hostile government" takeover argument--really, why construct a slur? See the Federalist Papers; the discussion was germane then--and still is today--remember the comment (ascribed to Yamamoto) about not invading the US because there is a rifle behind every blade of grass?

    Next: I don't consider The Golden Rule uaint--but it also isn't law . In its simplist use, the Golden Rule becomes a tyrannical force in the hands of a majority. There is not one gun-control law passed in the recent past that hasn't implicitly relied on the Golden Rule.

    But, at the heart of the emerging arguments against Sotomayor, rests the picture of a jurist who prefers statist solutions to individual ones. (FWIW, the Sanchez-Villar issue is a red herring; GOA should research their subject more, rather than relying on this particular 'quote.'

    For this reason alone--statist solutions to personal need--she may well be the best of the bunch-of-bananas the Obaminator will put forward. That is no reason to support her confirmation.






    - jfhUS May 30, 2009 11:00AM

    Reply to this Recommend (2) Icon flag

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

    • Stark Raving Sane
      No slur intended.

      Sotomayor began her career as a Manhattan ADA, and like most characters on "Law and Order" has seen the human cost of inadequate gun control . Many peace officers support more stringent control without repealing the 2nd Amendment.

      I would prefer that the right to bear arms not create a civilization in which we all need to bear arms.

      - Stark Raving SaneUS May 30, 2009 1:28PM

      Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

      Thank You for your Comment

      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

    • Mike Stahl
      The ATF or local cops?

      jfh,

      I think that you might be missing something-the constitution has been consistently watered down since the Washington administration. Moreover, the idea that somehow if "rights" are defined as whatever the SC says they are is extraordinarily dangerous. The idea of "indoctrination" then runs contrary to federalism, and is a very sharp double-edged sword. By being able to overturn State laws, the feds arrogate the ability to set State law in a universal fashion-far more disturbing than just local tyranny. One can after all, leave NYC, and certainly have more of a chance to effect that government, than one can effect the monstrosity on the Potomac.
      The assumption seems to be that the feds will strike down local laws like those in NYC, but there is no basis for that-look at the Heller decision itself-it explicitly permits licensing and regulation-despite that window dressing of "individual right".
      Who's to say that the SC would not uphold NYC's gun laws (Heller still could not get a permit after the decision, you recall), and then wait for congress to apply them nationwide?

      In fact that seems likely. There is no silver bullet, if you want to have "rights", you can only count on yourself to defend them.

      - Mike StahlUS May 30, 2009 1:37PM

      Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

      Thank You for your Comment

      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • jfh
    aha! caught:

    for stark raving sane : You've been unmasked: anyone who claims that NYC laws for firearms ownership are inadequate gun control is no moderate on this subject.

    Spend some time in a shall-carry jurisdiction, and you will see that there is no cause for concern.

    for Mike Stahl : I did not intend to imply that it is only what the SC defines the law to be, merely not to argue that in response to Stark Raving (in)Sane's comments.

    - jfhUS May 30, 2009 2:56PM

    Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

    • Stark Raving Sane
      Rats, foiled again.

      I do live in a legal concealed weapon area (I don't know the term shall-carry), and agree that it's no different, or safer. The courts don't make law . Their decisions can force bad laws to be rewritten and in the end, force a Constitutional amendment to clarify whether a right is controlled by the Federal Government or reserved for the States.

      The second amendment is ambiguous in many people's minds. The terms "well regulated" "militia" and "right to bear arms" are the source of much confusion and the fodder for many lively debates such as this one.

      I really take no strong interest in gun control law, so I am not well versed in recent court actions on the issue. Frankly, I prefer a climate where there is sufficient regulation of the commerce in guns to restrict the access of mentally unbalanced. Obviously no law will totally remove the guns from the criminals, since by definition they don't care about breaking any law.

      But should the clarification of the right to own guns approach a bright line where common sense and reason are crossed, I will join you in the struggle to enact clear, reasonable and enforceable law, even if it means amending the second amendment to say so in no uncertain terms.

      So I will skulk away from this thread as I adjust my moderate mask to deceive the next OVer. I celebrate every Independence day by reading the Declaration of Independence, an inspiring and thrilling act of courage. Please join me, many newspapers reprint it, and there's always the internet . Good luck, God speed and remember, always buy American.

      - Stark Raving SaneUS May 31, 2009 11:41AM

      Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

      Thank You for your Comment

      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

      • jfh
        You can't leave!

        I have found a brother in obfuscation here, I thought.

        FYI, 'shall carry' is a colloquialism for those carry laws in which objective criteria are used for license / permit require issuance, not the arbitrary decision of some official.

        The 2nd Amendment is only ambiguous to the underschooled, and to those who were schooled by unthinking educators who were indoctrinated in college by literati liberal professors. I completely agree that the typical layman doesn't understand this. All one has to do is to read the National Parks / Carry discussion at tbe NYTimes' "Room For Debate" blog to see this. (One has has to wade through a lot of "feelings" commentary to find the topic ignorance as well.)

        As for the mentally unbalanced--well, who are we to judge, particularly for a fundamental Right? I say that as a person with no small amount of therapeutic work with people who were seriously crazy--as well as typical neuroses-driven behavior. At a more realistic level, however, that can be determined, at least for a given moment in time, and we didn't to rely on senile old Frank Lautenberg to drive the rest of our Congresscritters to do it.

        Although you and I may mount a Rampart together--would it be bright and in the smog of scholarly debate, or obscured by gunsmoke and accompanied by the shrieks of the fearful?--I worry more about us being on opposite sides. As for me, I will be more concerned about having dry powder and at least an AR-15, if not an M-16. Regardless of which side does it--the majority of politicians will probably be dead, or cowering in the bunkers.

        Before you leave--tell me what an OVer is. If you do that, I will think of you on July 4th.

        - jfhUS May 31, 2009 3:06PM

        Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag

        Thank You for your Comment

        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

        • Stark Raving Sane
          Eschew Obfuscation!

          A strictly fundamental reading of the 2nd Amendment cannot be resolved as to whether the authors meant to allow state militias or bar the Federal government from banning firearms . Since the Civil War seems to have relegated state militias as arms of the Federal government, then only the later is operative. However, to be fair, absent further clarification from the framers, one can only infer that their intent was to allow muzzle loading firearms, the state of the art technology when the issue was debated. I'm fine with that.

          I applaud your choice of weapons. I qualified as "expert" with the M-16. However if I were to ever again man the ramparts, I am convinced the best choice would be an AK47. Even the US has purchased AK47s for the Iraqi Army. I am a firm believer in buying American, but when it comes to life or death decisions, screw it.

          OVer is Opposing View member (OV).

          Adios Amigo, perhaps we'll square off on another thread. Think I'll leave the gun thing alone for a while - never argue with the over-armed.

          - Stark Raving SaneUS May 31, 2009 4:53PM

          Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

          Thank You for your Comment

          We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

          • jfh
            I am eagerly awaiting

            further communication from you on these issues. However, I assume you will be preparing these using a quill and parchment paper, perhaps dispatched by MidnightRide-dot-com.

            - jfhUS June 1, 2009 2:24PM

            Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag

            Thank You for your Comment

            We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

See Related...