What a bunch of embiciles:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/au4tj_mlpv40
Let's see, the SCOTUS ruled that the 2A is an individual right.
The Tenth Amendment reads: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The SCOTUS has repeatedly ruled that ALL levels of government in the US must abide by an individuals 4th Amendment rights.
Yet somehow these rocket scientists, in spite of a SCOTUS ruling otherwise, don't believe that states must abide by other BoR Amendments reserved for the people.
Gee, does this mean that states can restrict 1st Amendment rights? Does it mean that states can force the housing of National Guard troops by the people? Does it mean they can try people in double jeopardy?
So what makes them think that it's ok to let states do as they please regarding the 2nd Amendment?
What a bunch of monumental DUMBASSES!!!!!!! :finger:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/au4tj_mlpv40
Sotomayor May Have Some Unlikely Allies on Gun Issue
June 2 (Bloomberg) -- Judge Sonia Sotomayors best defense against firearms owners mobilizing to oppose her U.S. Supreme Court nomination may come from an unlikely source: two top conservatives on the federal bench.
Sotomayor was labeled anti-gun by Gun Owners of America for refusing to extend to the states the U.S. Supreme Courts 2008 decision overturning a Washington, D.C., handgun ban. The group said a January ruling by a three-judge panel that included Sotomayor displayed pure judicial arrogance for declining to throw out a New York state weapons law.
Today, Richard Posner and Frank Easterbrook, appointed to the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago by President Ronald Reagan, took the same hands-off as Sotomayor. They joined a 3-0 ruling that upheld weapons ordinances in Chicago and suburban Oak Park, Illinois, and rejected challenges by gun rights advocates.
The Supreme Court has rebuffed requests to apply the Second Amendment to the states, Easterbrook wrote for the three-judge court.
In its ruling last year on the Washington handgun ban, the Supreme Court said the Second Amendment protects an individuals right to bear arms against regulation by the District of Columbia and the federal government. Previously, the high court had recognized only a collective right to bear arms applied by state militias.
Its nice to have two leading conservative judges for support, said Washington lawyer Patricia Millett, a Supreme Court specialist. It will really take the steam out of accusations Sotomayor, 54, is hostile to gun rights, she said.
Private Meetings
Sotomayor began meeting individually in private today with senators in preparation for hearings on her confirmation. No date has been set for the hearings.
Posner and Easterbrook are leaders of the so-called law and economics school of thought that espouses free-market principles to help resolve legal questions.
They signaled in court arguments last month that their ruling today would say it is up to the Supreme Court -- not appellate judges -- to extend the Constitutions Second Amendment protection for gun owners to the states.
Sotomayor, a judge on the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York, likely will face questions on gun rights when the Senate Judiciary Committee holds hearings on her high court nomination by President Barack Obama to replace retiring Justice David Souter.
An Important Footnote
The Supreme Court said in a footnote to its 5-4 ruling in the Washington case that it didnât decide whether the Second Amendment binds the states as well as the federal government and the District of Columbia.
The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled this year that states are bound by the Second Amendments protection for an individuals right to bear arms -- in contrast to the three-judge panel in New York that included Sotomayor. The 9th Circuit struck down a local ordinance that banned guns from public property.
Mark Tushnet, a law professor at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, suggested it was the 9th Circuit approach that is activist.
Judge Sotomayors position and those of Posner and Easterbrook, is far more in the mainstream, Tushnet said in an e-mail.
Promising Ammunition
Republican strategist John Ullyot said in an e-mail, Gun rights is emerging as the most promising ammunition for Republicans to attack Sotomayors nomination. He declined to say how much political traction the issue will provide.
Sotomayors position speaks to her judicial philosophy, said Erich Pratt, spokesman for the 300,000-member Gun Owners of America, based in Springfield, Virginia. We plan to be very involved. The group on its Web site urged members to contact senators.
The 2nd Circuit panel that included Sotomayor ruled in January in a case involving numchucks, or martial-arts sticks. A New York law bans them as dangerous weapons.
In a brief, unsigned opinion, the panel said it lacked authority to overturn the ban because that is a matter for the Supreme Court. The high court has the prerogative of overruling its own decisions, the opinion said.
The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said on its Web site that Obama nominated Sotomayor to stack courts with gun-control advocates.
Serious Concerns
So far, the National Rifle Association, the largest gun- rights organization in the U.S., hasnt taken a position.
We have questions and we have serious concerns, said NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam.
It was the Fairfax, Virginia-based groups challenge to gun-control laws in Chicago and Oak Park that prompted todays ruling by the appeals court in Chicago that includes Easterbrook and Posner. When the case was argued, the two judges peppered NRA lawyers with questions about why the case shouldnt be thrown out.
I dont see how you can get around the Supreme Courts admonition to us that we are not to anticipate overruling of Supreme Court decisions, Posner said at the May 26 argument.
In the 7th Circuits opinion, Easterbrook wrote that, if an appeals court ignores a Supreme Court decision by identifying and accepting one or another contention not expressly addressed by the justices, high court rulings would bind only justices too dim-witted to come up with a novel argument.
Todays ruling likely will be cited by Sotomayor and her defenders to blunt criticism she showed hostility to gun rights.
It shows Sotomayor did what the good judge should do: respect the authority and hierarchy of the federal court system, said Neil Seigel, a former Democratic staff counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee who teaches at Duke University law school.
Calling Sotomayor a judicial activist based on the weapons case takes that label and stands it on its ear, Millett said.
Let's see, the SCOTUS ruled that the 2A is an individual right.
The Tenth Amendment reads: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The SCOTUS has repeatedly ruled that ALL levels of government in the US must abide by an individuals 4th Amendment rights.
Yet somehow these rocket scientists, in spite of a SCOTUS ruling otherwise, don't believe that states must abide by other BoR Amendments reserved for the people.
Gee, does this mean that states can restrict 1st Amendment rights? Does it mean that states can force the housing of National Guard troops by the people? Does it mean they can try people in double jeopardy?
So what makes them think that it's ok to let states do as they please regarding the 2nd Amendment?
What a bunch of monumental DUMBASSES!!!!!!! :finger: