Obama declares war on gun owners

[David LaPell]

http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews....ken_obama_sotomayor/

 

[luangtom]

I agree it is unsettling to hear of Sotomayor as the pick. She already in on record as stating the US Constitution is irrelevant and that judges make policy. She feels Latinos are smarter than White men and is on record stating that, too. Unbiased? Hardly. Scary? Yes. For what little good it will do, I have forwarded these concerns to our two US Senators. It will just get scarier....

 

[alde]

So, if she feels that states have the right to pass any law they want with regard to 2A she is in favor of states rights. She would have to say that Montana, Texas, Utah and other states pushing for states rights are ok with her too.

 

[Spotteddog]

Oh YES, that'd be JUST FINE with her, I'm sure!

 

[nicky4968]

First, she couldn't be any worse than Souter. She might be better.
Second, she said that the 14th Amendment did not incorporate the 2nd Amendment. That has, unfortunately, been the ruling of the Supreme Court on more than one occasion.
Now the 9th Circuit (of which she is not a part) has said the 14th Amendment does incorporate the 2nd Amendment. This is at odds with all the other Circuits (which have been following precedent, anyway); this will eventually result in an interesting fight before the Supremes. (Assuming that the Ninth Circuit does not en banc reverse the incorporation of the 2nd Amendment in the Nordyke case.)
Long story short, she said she was following precedent, not making new law. It would seem to me that that philosophy comports with the philosophical outlook of many on this forum.
Wait and see.

 

[Spotteddog]

I've seen this movie and I know how it comes out!

 

[Gun 4 Fun]

I'm glad that my state's constitution says that an individual has the right to keep and bear arms.

.

 

[nicky4968]

Nine Justices in Heller said that the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right. That alone was an earthquake. They had never said it wasn't; they had never said it was.
The 5/4 split was over whether that included handguns.
Mr. Obama would have to replace five Justices to have a chance at getting a ruling that the right to keep and bear arms is not an individual right. Outside of some made-for-TV scenario, it ain't going to happen. I think too many of us are overlooking how momentous the Heller decision was because it did not necessarily go on to address the concerns shared by many on this forum. But it was big; it will remain big.

 

[7.62foryou]

The Constitution is a living and flexable document of negitive rights, if one is a mentally ill lib. So it means whatever they want it to mean from day to day. That's the beauty of liberalism everyday is a new day and what was done or said the day before means nothing unless it fits the agenda. The next appointment that BO makes to the SC is the begining of the end, right now it's still status quo.

 

[LoboGunLeather]

So, we all expected something else, someone else, some other flavor?

Mr. Obama has never pretended to be anything other than a left-wing radical, so why are we surprised when he behaves as his nature demands?

 

[Spotteddog]

Well, lemme' put it this way.
I'm surprised he chose a mammal?

 

[rz625-8]

Gun 4 Fun,I have to agree with you on the state constitution like we have here in Nebraska. A STATE CONSTITUTION is real well better written than the fed has. And ours state the same at the end,,,,, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Need I say more peoples? You can talk to your state legislatures and tell them that if you do not have a gun rights admendment,that you want one asap. Or you want soveringty from the feds. rich625-8

 

[7.62foryou]

Here in the little state of Rhode Island Article 1 section 22 of our State Constitution states: "The peoples right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Our Surpreme Court has determined this means we can have guns in our homes and carry same on our land, and that the sole arbitor of who gets a CCW permit is the AG. So words don't always means what you would think they mean.

 

[swman]

Originally posted by 7.62foryou:
Here in the little state of Rhode Island Article 1 section 22 of our State Constitution states: "The peoples right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Our Surpreme Court has determined this means we can have guns in our homes and carry same on our land, and that the sole arbitor of who gets a CCW permit is the AG. So words don't always means what you would think they mean.

So, there's no requirement that RI judges can read and comprehend English? But, then I guess that requirement would be discrimination?