Re: Sotomayor Says Heller Gun Right Applies Only To Federal Government, Not States

nada <> wrote in news:he57m.2$8B7.1@xxxxxxxxxxxx:

nraclaptrap wrote:
US top court nominee accepts gun rights decision
Tue Jul 14, 2009 3:08pm EDT

By James Vicini

WASHINGTON, July 14 (Reuters) - U.S. Supreme Court nominee Sonia
Sotomayor said on Tuesday that she accepted the high court's ruling
last year that an individual's right to own guns is guaranteed by the
Second Amendment of the Constitution.

"I understand ... how important the right to bear arms is to many,
many Americans," she told the Senate Judiciary Committee. "And I have
friends who hunt. I understand the individual right fully that the
Supreme Court recognized."

Sotomayor said she had cited the Supreme Court's decision in a ruling
by a U.S. appeals court panel she was on that held that the right to
keep and bear arms only prohibits the federal government from
imposing restrictions, and not the states.

Federal appeals courts around the country have been divided on
whether the ruling also applied to state laws, and the Supreme Court
is expected to decide the issue during its upcoming term that starts
in October.

Sotomayor said she would have an "open mind" on the gun rights issue.
"I would not prejudge any question that came before me if I was a
justice on the Supreme Court," she said.

The appeals court panel that included Sotomayor said in the opinion
that "it is settled law ... that the Second Amendment applies only to
limitations that the federal government seeks to impose on this

The panel rejected a challenge to a New York law that bans possession
even in the home of a martial arts weapon called a chuka stick or
nunchaku. James Maloney, who was arrested under the law, has appealed
his case to the Supreme Court, where it is pending.

Sotomayor told the confirmation hearing the ruling held the state had
a rational basis for prohibiting the possession of this kind of

"When the sticks are swung, which is what you do with them, if
there's anybody near you, you're going to be seriously injured,
because that swinging mechanism can break arms, it can bust someone's
skull," she said.

A gun control group, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said
it supported Sotomayor's nomination to the Supreme Court, based on
her testimony at the second day of her hearings.

Paul Helmke, the group's president, said, "She has given clear and
responsible answers, while not prejudging any issues that may come
before her on the court. We have been impressed with her
presentation." (Editing by Cynthia Osterman)


And here we have the standard model of the Second Amendment - fake
individual gun right for DC, no effect on state gun rights. The
Second Amendment protects the people's right to have a well-regulated
militia because the National Guard is NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY OF A

Except it doesn't say that.
The right to keep and bear arms is the PEOPLE'S right,and not required to
be part of a militia to do so.
All the 2nd says about militias is that they are a nice thing.

In other words, a state free from Republicans, neocons and other
rightwing extremists disarming and disabling our well-regulated
militia - today's NATIONAL GUARD...

National Guard is NOT a "militia",it's a reserve component of the regular


An overused and completely wrong statement.

It is apparent she interprets law to suit her bias.
Some Amendments apply to Americans and some apply to Federal
Government and some to States.

And some directly to the People;the 2nd,10th and 14th say so.

"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the priveleges
or immunities of citizens of the United States;nor shall any state deprive
any person of life,liberty,or property,without due process of law;nor to
deny to any person within it's jurisdiction the equal protection of the

Nothing in the 2nd says that only the FEDGOV is prohibited from infringing
on the People's RKBA.It only says "shall not be infringed.",period.
That includes the States.(via the 14th)

The Constitution is our document that spells out that our Rights are
individual. If there is no individual right there are no rights. It
applies to all Americans and is not a privilege granted at the whim of
States. If a State can supered the Constitution then so can
Municipalities, and any governing body. It then is a privledge decided
whether you can have it or not depending on "Rulers" granting you the
We wrote the Constitution and the Government has to limit itself to
what powers we gave them. Government is the servant not our master.

Jim Yanik