Printable View
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/28/sotomayors-gun-control-positions-prompt-conservative-backlash
So the states can ban guns, just not the federal government? NO!
how about the 14 amendment which states that: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States"
Sotomayor: States Can Deny 2nd Amdmt | Sweetness & Light
Matt
well that is a new twist on States Rights :(
seems I saw a thread about her past opinions somewhere else......
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhailey
Yes, they can. The Second Amendment only limits actions by the Federal government. However, there may be (and probably are) similar limits written into the constitutions of the states.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhailey
Not relevant, I'm afraid. I think you would describe gun-ownership as a right, not a privilege, and certainly not an immunity (immune from what?). The 14th Amendment (a Reconstruction Amendment) is understood as extending equal protection to actions by states (such as racial segregation, etc.), and through some fancy legal footwork has fed back additional protections into the 5th Amendment. I have to say, though, that you have a very creative read on the 14th Amendment - give it a go, and see if it works! What do I know?
Thank you for educating me.Quote:
Originally Posted by igitur55
I did not know that rights are subject to less protection than privileges.
Matt
Edit: I can't leave it at that. Under your logic states can limit voting (on state issues) only to whites, because the constitution and federal law only applies to the Federal Government. The States can pass laws which abridge the right to freedom of speech. The state can perform an unreasonable search and seizure with impunity, because the bill of rights is only applicable to the federal government. The State can pass a law designating a certain religion as acceptable, and others that are unacceptable, because the first amendment only applies to the Federal Government.
The Bill of Rights codifies fundamental rights, and it is now settled law that the right to bear arms is a personal right. The 14th Amendment holds that no state can abridge the rights codified in the Constitution, and that would include the 2nd amendment.
As far as a "creative read" on the 14th amendment, my read is the same as Justice Black's in Adamson v. California. It is not that "creative" of a read.
Matt
They are not necessarily. My point is that the Constitution says what it says. It is an amazing document, and contains very few words, so each one has to be read carefully. I am just trying to be helpful, not condescending.Quote:
Originally Posted by mhailey
Yeah....this IS pretty scary and I hope they give her hell over it @ her confirmation hearings.....but look at it this wayQuote:
Originally Posted by mhailey
Giving states more freedom to make their own decisions regarding gun rights doesn't always work AGAINST Second Amendment freedoms....you have a lot of states that have pretty liberal (ie. NOT restrictive) firearms laws (SD, MO, NV, even my home state of WA)
I think we can all agree that if the federal government was completely in control and didn't give any freedom to the states to regulate (or more importantly NOT regulate) it would be disastrous....we'd end up with unconstitutional AWB's and a huge beaurocracy of BS regulation.
At least when more power is given to states, we have a huge beaurocracy of regulation AND lack of regulation. :)
OMG I can't believe that some of you would say what you just said.....
That scares me more then that wacky broad does...
Do you realize that you just said that the States can decide on Constitutional Amendments as they see fit????? seriously????
Wow I love that idea... and all of you stay away from Idaho because I know for sure with out a doubt what this state would change in a heartbeat..... Yeah actually I think I like that idea.. Let the states decide :rock: Hmmmmm of course we would have to close the state borders....we wouldn't want all you Blue Staters trying to get into our states,,, ooooo and we could do that too since we are changing the Constitution....
G.W. <-------- movin to Idaho :rock:Quote:
Originally Posted by gssixgun
ON TOPIC
I'm a little flabbergasted myself with one particular post.
EDIT make that two posts and I'm not touching them
all I can say is that is is OH SO VERY CLEAR that Originalism as a means of interpretation is not being taught
IF (that's a big IF folks)anything is being taught at all
I very strongly hope that this woman can be impaled upon her own previously stated opinions
Even the NRA is saying they have to do more research to pin down her position. You do understand that the intent of that story is to make people oppose Sotomayor WITHOUT doing any research, right? It's manipulation of the broadest sort.
The ruling in question was simply following the precedent of the Supreme Court cases Presser v. Illinois and Bach v. Pataki--which clearly set that the XIV amendment does NOT apply to second amendment protection--if she had gone against the precendent, she would have been disagreeing with long standing Supreme Court precedent...a bad move, indeed.
Top of the evening to you, GWH! And what a singular pleasure it is to be discussing among friends that wonderful, living, breathing, occasionally medicinal pot-smoking organic document of ours - I mean the United States Constitution. OK, I'm tearing up here ... . Later, folks!Quote:
Originally Posted by gratewhitehuntr