Comments on: Sotomayor and guns

By: Chris W

Chris W — Fri, 29 May 2009 22:58:54 +0000

Hey, all…

Just a nice little tidbit for you. Sotomayor’s opinion that states can make laws curtailing Constitutional rights is 100% anti-14th amendment..

“No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;”

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxiv.html

By: Sandy Davison

Sandy Davison — Thu, 28 May 2009 16:09:45 +0000

Hi everyone,

Judge Sotomayor is dangerous. But we should not be surprised of her views on the Constitution let alone people having the right to bear guns, as she is from Obama country. I hope the Republicans sit on this and maybe the American people we get off the sofa and complain. We are so close to losing it all! Tea anyone?

By: Kristopher

Kristopher — Wed, 27 May 2009 04:18:39 +0000

# Smith Says: Ken: Yes we can! Yes we shall!

By: Chas

Chas — Tue, 26 May 2009 23:34:26 +0000

Nunchakus, being arms, are covered by the individual right to keep and bear arms. Nunchakus date from long before the time of the Founders, and they being educated men, were certainly aware of such, the flail being a fairly simple instrument. See the illustration of flails, which were sometimes pressed into military service as weapons, in use around 1270.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flail_(agriculture)
Sotomayor, being a pinheaded, white male hating, New York, Puerto Rican, leftist Latina, has no respect for the right to keep and bear arms, which as far as she’s concerned is just a bunch of dangerous nonsense for old, white men, who themselves are dangerous nonsense, both of whom should be done away with ASAP. That racist, bigoted woman should not be allowed anywhere near the Supreme Court.

By: Rivrdog

Rivrdog — Tue, 26 May 2009 19:44:56 +0000

What hypnagogue said. Nunchakus were unknown to the Founders, as the society that originated them was a closed society at the time.

The nunchaku case was idiocy on both sides. The original judge who heard that defense should have tossed it on the grounds that, as hypnogogue said, they were not militia weapons at all, and that only Anglo-European and native American weapons were known to the founders.

Of course, then the Second Circus court, with Sotomayor on it, then concluded that the Second Amendment did not apply to the States, but that’s a separate matter entirely from the nunchakus, AND it has been buried by Heller.

It will be interesting to see what she answers when asked to say how she would rule on the nunchakus case today in the light of Heller.

By: TexasFred

TexasFred — Tue, 26 May 2009 19:23:18 +0000

I used you and this article as a source for some 2A opinion on Sotomayor... Sotomayor nominated to high court - first Hispanic

By: Hypnagogue

Hypnagogue — Tue, 26 May 2009 19:03:48 +0000

The right to self-defense is a fundamental right, the right to keep and to bear arms is a Constitutionally enumerated right, but the right to own guns is a derived right. Technically, a well-regulated militia can be armed with public arms, provided that they are never taken away. It’s hard to see how nunchaku can serve as a test for any of these.

In order for nunchaku to pass muster under Heller, it would have to be a weapon appropriate for self defense. I would argue that its slightly less useful for that purpose than a hedge trimmer, and a hedge trimmer is more likely to be in common use.

By: Smith

Smith — Tue, 26 May 2009 18:47:42 +0000

Ken: Yes we can!

By: Ken

Ken — Tue, 26 May 2009 18:00:00 +0000

So will we hang her like an albatross around the necks of the Blue Dog Democrats, or won’t we?