Did you people know that in 2004, Sotomayor ruled that?

ownership of a gun is not a constitutional right ?

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx...

Tying her ruling which now will be tried at the Supreme Court, into Mr. Obama recent statement is eye-opening to who his wants on the Supreme Court, don’t you think ?

Obama said the following the other day about Sotomayor:

I want her to start providing some justice. I want her walking up those marble steps and I want her to start providing some justice. Meaning, it ain't justice coming out of there now. I want her walking up those steps, and I want her to start providing some justice.

25 Answers

Relevance
  • L.T.M.
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago
    Best Answer

    "The opinion said that the Second Amendment only restricted the federal government from infringing on an individual's right to keep and bear arms. As justification for this position, the opinion cited the 1886 Supreme Court case of Presser v. Illinois.

    Why would she 'reach' all the way back to 1886 when there have been cases before the SCOTUS as recently as 2008?

    By Joan Biskupic and Kevin Johnson, USA TODAY

    WASHINGTON —

    The Supreme Court's historic decision Thursday carving out an individual right to gun ownership immediately cast doubt on gun restrictions nationwide, as firearms-rights advocates prepared to file a new round of lawsuits testing the scope of the ruling.

    Hours after the momentous 5-4 ruling that struck down a ban on handguns in Washington, D.C., gun rights supporters signaled they will challenge gun restrictions in cities and suburbs across the nation.

    The majority opinion, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, established for the first time in U.S. history that the Constitution's Second Amendment gives individuals the right to keep guns at home for self-defense. Yet Scalia noted that a person's right to gun ownership is not unlimited. He said it would not likely override bans on concealed weapons; laws that prohibit felons and the mentally ill from possessing firearms; or those that ban firearms in government buildings and schools.

    Beyond that, the court did not address what types of regulations would survive legal challenges. It did not say, for example, whether people have a right to carry guns in their neighborhoods, or keep them in their cars on the way to and from work.

    Nevertheless, Thursday's ruling by the conservative-majority court represented a huge breakthrough for gun rights advocates who have long wanted the high court's confirmation that the Second Amendment guarantees individuals — and not just government militias — the right to bear arms.

    NOTE > This 'liberal' spin on the decision is the best the USA Today could come up with.

    Obama seeks to Destroy what he swore to Defend.

  • Tubby
    Lv 5
    1 decade ago

    I hate to use the "poisoned well" excuse, but really - CNS News is pretty much the most biased outlet I've ever seen. I will find the actual ruling and comment further.

    EDIT-

    "Second Amendment: Sotomayor was also a member of the panel that issued a per curiam opinion in another controversial case that may be headed for the Court next year. In Maloney v. Cuomo, 554 F.3d 56 (2009), the panel considered (as relevant here) a claim by a New York attorney that a state law prohibiting possession of a chuka stick (also known as nunchaku, a device used in martial arts consisting of two sticks joined by a rope or chain) violated his Second Amendment right to bear arms. The district court rejected the claim on the ground that the Second Amendment does not apply to the states."

    Oh, so, guns aren't even mentioned in the case? Surprise surprise! Look what I learn when I think for myself!

  • crunch
    Lv 6
    1 decade ago

    If Sotomayor agreed in the decision that states could write laws banning the private ownership of arms without crossing the US constitution, she is no judge of the Constitution.

    Many galling decisions have been rendered by the Supreme Court but the most shocking was the 5 to 4 decison by the Justices that people do have a right to life.

  • Sarah
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago

    "Sotomayor was also a member of the panel that issued a per curiam opinion in another controversial case that may be headed for the Court next year. In Maloney v. Cuomo, 554 F.3d 56 (2009), the panel considered (as relevant here) a claim by a New York attorney that a state law prohibiting possession of a chuka stick (also known as nunchaku, a device used in martial arts consisting of two sticks joined by a rope or chain) violated his Second Amendment right to bear arms. The district court rejected the claim on the ground that the Second Amendment does not apply to the states. On appeal, the panel affirmed. Relying on the Supreme Court’s 1886 decision in Presser v. Illinois, it explained that it was “settled law . . . that the Second Amendment applies only to limitations the federal government seeks to impose” on the individual’s right to bear arms. The Supreme Court’s recent decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, the court continued, “does not invalidate this longstanding principle.” And while acknowledging the possibility that “Heller might be read to question the continuing validity of this principle,” the panel deemed itself bound to follow Presser because it “directly controls, leaving to the Supreme Court the prerogative of overruling its own decisions.” Maloney’s lawyers intend to file a petition for certiorari in late June."

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Read the article before you link it:

    "The opinion said that the Second Amendment only restricted the federal government from infringing on an individual's right to keep and bear arms. As justification for this position, the opinion cited the 1886 Supreme Court case of Presser v. Illinois.

    “It is settled law, however, that the Second Amendment applies only to limitations the federal government seeks to impose on this right,” said the opinion. Quoting Presser, the court said, “it is a limitation only upon the power of Congress and the national government, and not upon that of the state.”

  • 1 decade ago

    Well I guess if the 2nd amendment doesn't apply to the states then no federal laws apply to the states....

    This woman is a racist and a legal quack.

    Sotomayor doesn't have the credentials to be class president let alone a justice on the SCOTUS.

  • 1 decade ago

    So using her logic Roe V. Wade means only the Federal Government can not interfere with a woman's right to choose. So that means that states can do what they want.

    In a way I agree with this as that is what the Founding Fathers wanted. The US Constitution to protect you from a tyrannical Federal Government and your state constitution to protect you from an abusive state government. Still I doubt that is the reason why she ruled the way she did

  • 1 decade ago

    Basically what I heard was that she said individual states can override the Federal ruling on Guns. In other words- a state can go against our 2nd amendment RIGHTS. This lady is supposed to uphold the Constitution????? We need to spread this message- because we know the main stream media will not report on this!!

  • 1 decade ago

    Any power not specifically granted to the Federal Government belongs to either the States or the Individuals (Bill of Rights).

    Tenth Amendment.

    Second Amendment rights exist to enforce the Constitution if the Government gets too lazy and greedy.

    Period. End of class. Too bad most of our "leaders" were truant.

  • gery
    Lv 4
    3 years ago

    interior the activity of Jurisprudence. you're able to surmise that the Appellate court choose could render on the part of the Coyote, he's relatively a sufferer the dems like to help. continuously failing. yet maintains to objective and outsmart the ACME organization. something like an ordeal lawyer could do.So I provide her the props to safeguard the 4 legged creature. it is until ultimately the money run out. Then the Coyote is toast.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.