The NRA doesn't seem to like Sonia Sotomayor. That means.......

[marmar]

I OFFICIALLY LOVE HER !!! :toast:



from an NRA press release:


Sotomayor's Bias
Wednesday, July 15, 2009


Other than declaring war, neither house of Congress has a more solemn responsibility than the Senate’s role in confirming justices to the U.S. Supreme Court. As the Senate considers the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor, Americans are watching to see if this nominee would lend her support to those who’ve declared war on the rights of America’s 80 million gun owners.

After the first day of confirmation hearings, gun owners have good reason to worry. Those of us who respect the Second Amendment are concerned about the case of Maloney v. Cuomo, which reviewed whether this freedom applies to all law-abiding Americans or only to residents of Washington, D.C. If it’s incorporated, the Second Amendment prevents the states from disarming honest Americans. If it’s not, the Second Amendment is meaningless outside of our nation’s capital. ........(more at: http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/NewsReleases.aspx?ID=12694 )

[slackmaster]

1. Knee-jerk opinions are much easier to form and to articulate than thoughtful ones

Do you have any specific point on which you would care to comment on regarding a difference of opinion with the piece you copied and pasted? Or are you taking the facile view that anything and everything that particular group says or does is automatically wrong?

[Hepburn]

6. IMO, it is it from the NRA, it is automatically suspect in my book.

I have a close male pal who, for lack of better terms, is a gun nut. He is always sending me something by email from the NRA. Each and every time he has done this, I have been able to dispute their lying, hyperbole bullshit with facts. They habitually misinform.

Therefore, I find the position of the OP extremely credible: If the NRA is against something, my inclination is to be for it.

JMHO

[slackmaster]

9. What's your assessment of their view on Judge Sotomayor's position on the Second Amendment?

I'd really like to see this thread turn into a meaningful discussion before it gets moved to the Gungeon.

Maybe I'm asking too much.

[Hepburn]

11. They are incorrect.

She is following the law ~~ they are not. Next question...

[slackmaster]

12. Even the dissenting opinions in Heller say the 2A applies to the states

Which law are you talking about?

[Hepburn]

16. Heller applies to an INDIVIDUAL's right to self defense.

[slackmaster]

18. The Second Amendment refers to an individual's right to keep and bear arms

Your point?

[Hepburn]

28. You refered to HELLER....

...it is based on an individual's right to self defense. I guess you have not read Scalia's opinion, right?

[slackmaster]

33. The desicion says the District "must permit Heller to register his handgun..."

And "...must issue him a license to carry it in the home", provided that he is not disqualified from exercising his Second Amendment rights.

[Statistical]

34. Heller doesn't limit the right to self defense.

Held: 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

There are many lawful purposes for a firearm, self defense being just one of them.

[Statistical]

31. No they didn't. Heller bypassed the entire issue of incorporation.

That was intentional. Alan Gura (lead counsel) chose DC specifically to avoid the entire issue of incorporation.

His legal philosophy is to make the case as simple as possible and make it a black or white issue.

Is the 2nd and individual right unconnected to service in a militia?
Heller says say.

In McDonald v. Chicago he frames another very simple question.
"Is the individual right (established by Heller) incorporated against the states via either the Due Process or Equal Protection clause"?

Think of it as the legal equivelent of island hopping.

Future islands could be:
Are excessive fees infringement?
Are excluding weapons made past an arbitrary date (1986) infringement?
If the state designs with the intent to deprive people of their right is that infringing?
Does the right to self defense end at ones doorstep or does it extend into public space?

Keep each court case simple and make the decision black & white.

[Common Sense Party]

2. "The Second Amendment doesn't apply to the states"???

:wtf:

Can someone explain that?

[slackmaster]

3. There's nothing to explain

She was flat-out wrong.

[Hepburn]

4. It has not been incorporated.

All of the Bill of Rights are about FEDERAL law, not state law.

[Statistical]

7. Yup just like states can keep women from voting and have their own state religion n/t

[Hepburn]

10. So.......

....care to explain how the 2nd amendment to the FEDERAL Const has been incorporated.

I am waiting....and please limit your factual discussion to the SECOND Amendment, OK?

[Common Sense Party]

13. Is there something different about the SECOND amendment?

What makes it different from all the other amendments?

Has the first amendment been "incorporated"? (Whatever the hell that means.)

[Hepburn]

14. It's a legal term viz application of certain federal laws to the states.

[Common Sense Party]

15. Why is the 2nd Amendment DIFFERENT from the 1st, 3rd, 4th 8th, etc?

[Hepburn]

17. Legal precedent.

[Common Sense Party]

20. I want to thank you for your vague, imprecise and unhelpful answers.

I really appreciate you not enlightening me today.

[Hepburn]

26. If you are listening to the SS Judic committee hearing...

...this might have been a clear answer to you. SS is continuously discussing applying legal precedents.

For example ~~ and this is not from the hearing ~~ as to the 6th Amendment right to counsel: Do you realize that this was not viewed as a "fundamental right" viz state courts until the mid-1960s? The states did not have to provide to any indigent criminal defense counsel even with serious felony charges pending. Case law from the SCOTUS changed that rule for the states and made the FEDERAL law ~~ the 6th Amendment right to counsel ~~ apply viz the 14th Amendment Due Process clause. See: Gideon v. Wainright re: felony trials.

I guess I gave you too much credit to understanding that federal law does not ipso facto apply to the states automatically. Legal precedents define what is and is not due process, OK? That as far as rights under the First 10 Amendments ultimately comes from the SCOTUS. Please understand: The Bill of Rights did not apply automatically to the states ~~ only to FEDERAL proceedings and issues.

[TheWraith]

21. The Second Amendment has been incorporated by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The 2nd and 7th Circuits have not ruled in favor of incorporation. When the NRA vs. Chicago lawsuit makes it to the SCOTUS, they're widely expected to rule in favor of incorporation, thus backing up the 9th Circuit.

[Hepburn]

27. I agree....

...that is why Heller was so interesting, IMO.

[TheWraith]

32. This might help some people: incorporation status of all BOR amendments.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_(Bill_of_Rights)

[Statistical]

25. Well technically it has been just not for all of the United States.

The ninth circuit in Nordyke v. King has found the 2nd is incorporated against the states.
Granted this decision only applies to states in the ninth circuit but until overturned (or affirmed) by SCOTUS it stands.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordyke_v._King

So we need to look how/why another court found rule it is NOT incorporated against the states.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Cruikshank

Cruikshank is the direct precedent most correctly used.

Cruikshank ruled the 2nd is not incorporated so it "can" be used as direct precedent however courts are able to act morally when precedent is flawed to an extent to create a miscarriage of justice.

If they didn't we would still be stuck with Plessy v. Ferguson until the end of the Republic.

So should a justice not rely on Cruikshank (per logic of the ninth)?

Well lets look at it...

On Easter Day 1873, an armed white militia attacked Republican freedmen who had gathered at the Colfax, Louisiana courthouse to protect it from a Democratic takeover. Although some of the blacks were armed and initially defended themselves, estimates were that 100-280 were killed, most of them following surrender, and 50 were being held prisoner that night. A total of three whites were killed. This was in the tense aftermath of months of uncertainty following the disputed gubernatorial election of November 1872, when two parties declared victory at the state and local levels. The election was still unsettled in the spring, and both Republican and Fusionists had certified their own slates for the local offices of sheriff, parish justice of the peace, etc., in Grant Parish, where Colfax was the parish seat. Federal troops reinforced the election of the Republican governor. Some members of the white mob were indicted and charged under the Enforcement Act of 1870. Among other provisions, the law made it a felony for two or more people conspired to deprive anyone of his constitutional rights.

Given the disproportionate rate of black fatalities, historians have come to call the event the Colfax Massacre. It was long called the Colfax Riot in local white communities, which suggests how they told the story: an event arising because blacks were out of control.

In order to protect a racist lynching mob and do an end run around due process the racist Supreme court had to rule that the 1st & 2nd don't apply to the states. If they don't then Enforcement Act of 1870 didn't apply and the murderers would go free. If they did then a white man would be held responsible for putting down some uppity blacks.

The court was blatantly racist and ruled that BOTH the 1st and 2nd are not incorporated against the states.

This is your crown jewel that the 2nd isn't incorporated. Yay how progressive.

Even if it isn't morally bankrupt it is legally. The logic used for NOT incorporating the 1st was overturned in later cases. If you tried to rely on Cruikshank for saying the state has the ability to form a state (but not federal) religion you would be laughed out of the court. So your "logic" is that the racist Supreme Court was incorrect on the 1st but correct on the 2nd?

Precedent is important but blindly following precedent is not justice. The justices in the ninth looked at the fact as reached a conclusion Heller established an individual right as settled law. The only thing preventing that from applying to the states is a poorly decided racist decision. They broke precedent because it served the interest of justice.

If the 2nd circuit had simply said "This is a matter for SCOTUS" that would be one thing and likely wouldn't have worried gun owners. Sotomayor took it a step further saying "the 2nd is NOT an fundamental right" that indicates a willingness to not incorporate the 2nd even if Cruikshank was disregarded.

The word "not a fundamental right" aren't an accident. Another precedent uses those exact words as test to determine if something should be incorporated.

[Hepburn]

29. In any jurisdiction within the 9th cir, its decisions would be precedent and...

...a lower court would be bound to follow the rulings of the 9th viz the 2nd Amendment. All other jurisdictions, it could be used as persuasive citation only...in opposition to the decisions in that jurisdiction. Of course, the litigator would be required to provide the tribunal with the actual status of the law in that district...then he/she could cite the other, but only as persuasive argument.

[Statistical]

5. It is simple see.

It is just like the 1st, 4th, and 5th don't apply to the states... er wait.

See you have a right to own a firearm and the state completely banning that right doesn't prevent .... er wait.

See the 2nd isn't really part of the BofR. It was put their accidentally. The BofR is the 1st & 3rd - 10th. The 2nd was just some no right that was suppose to go in a statute but someone cross posted it there.

It is actually a conspiracy between the NRA and ninja. See NRA wants you to buy guns because then you will feel the need to associate and DUH NRA has associate right in it. The ninjas want you to buy guns because everyone knows ninjas can dodge bullets.

Since ninjas are so fast they were able to sneak the 2nd in between the 1st & 3rd and everyone signed it without even noticing it was there (hidden under a post it note).

[Hepburn]

8. Suggestion....

...become informed BEFORE you post, OK?

:eyes:

Your argument is total bullshit...and it fails miserably.

[Statistical]

19. You thought I was serious. Sweet love of God. Seriously read Nordyke v. King.

If you can read that and not reach the conclusion that the 2nd isn't incorporated via Due Process Clause then Due Process has no meaning any more.

The United States v. Cruikshank and Presser v. Illinois cases which one would have to rely upon as precedent against incorporation are utterly bankrupt.

This is your "progressive" support for not incorporating the 2nd.

On Easter Day 1873, an armed white militia attacked Republican freedmen who had gathered at the Colfax, Louisiana courthouse to protect it from a Democratic takeover. Although some of the blacks were armed and initially defended themselves, estimates were that 100-280 were killed, most of them following surrender, and 50 were being held prisoner that night. A total of three whites were killed. This was in the tense aftermath of months of uncertainty following the disputed gubernatorial election of November 1872, when two parties declared victory at the state and local levels. The election was still unsettled in the spring, and both Republican and Fusionists had certified their own slates for the local offices of sheriff, parish justice of the peace, etc., in Grant Parish, where Colfax was the parish seat. Federal troops reinforced the election of the Republican governor. Some members of the white mob were indicted and charged under the Enforcement Act of 1870. Among other provisions, the law made it a felony for two or more people conspired to deprive anyone of his constitutional rights.

Given the disproportionate rate of black fatalities, historians have come to call the event the Colfax Massacre. It was long called the Colfax Riot in local white communities, which suggests how they told the story: an event arising because blacks were out of control.

In order to protect a racist lynching mob and do an end run around due process the racist Supreme court ruled that BOTH the 1st and 2nd are not incorporated against the states thus allowing mass murderers to go free.

Yay how progressive.

Even if it isn't morally bankrupt it is legally. The logic used for NOT incorporating the 1st was overturned in later cases. If you tried to rely on Cruikshank for saying the state has the ability to form a state (but not federal) religion you would be laughed out of the court. So your "logic" is that the racist Supreme Court was incorrect on the 1st but correct on the 2nd?

Come on it doesn't even make sense.

The Presser decision relied heavily upon Cruikshank providing no stand alone analysis which would allow it to act as credible precedent once Cruikshank is removed.

[Hepburn]

30. That applies ONLY to the 9th cir...your point?

[cbayer]

22. marmar,

Please be aware that our posting rules require that copyrighted material be limited to four paragraphs with a link.

Thanks,

cbayer
DU Moderator

[marmar]

23. Claro que si.....Edited.

[cbayer]

24. Much appreciated. Thanks.

:hi:

[Paladin]

35. 10, 20, Or 100 Years From Now......

....whenever a Democratic president nominates an individual for a position on the Supreme Court, and regardless of that individual's background and abilities, she or he will be vilified by the nation's right-wing outlets---The Wall Street Journal, Fox News, the National Rifle Association, or their designated successors. Nothing new to report, here......

[Common Sense Party]

36. Just as when a Repuke president nominates someone for the S.C.,

regardless of that person's background or abilities, he or she will be vilified by the left wing. It's how the game is played.