Thursday, May 28, 2009

Obama Selects His Own Anti Gun Avitar for Supreme Court

Barack Obama's selection of Sonia Sotomayor for Supreme Court Justice will likely bring rough times for gun owners. She has proven herself to be anti Second Amendment, and joined her New York Appeals Court in January in ruling that the Second Amendment is not applicable to the States to protect citizens from infringements by local and state governments.

She is a poster child for a proverbial loose cannon who will disregard and ignore the law to advance her own personal opinions, agenda, and preferences in cases before the court as she has done in the past. Just ask the white Connecticut firemen whom she ripped apart in their discrimination case.

The Senate Republican leadership has announced that there will be no filibuster in her appointment future. She will be confirmed. But, its never too late to contact your Senator to say no to her.

Here's what Sotomayor said in her anti Second Amendment ruling in Malone v Cuomo.

"The Second Amendment provides: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the
security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
U.S. Const. amend. II. The Supreme Court recently held that this confers an individual right on citizens to keep and bear arms. See District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 2799 (2008).

It is settled law, however, that the Second Amendment applies only to limitations the federal government seeks to impose on this right. See, e.g., Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 265 (1886)(stating that the Second Amendment “is a limitation only upon the power of congress and the national government, and not upon that of the state”); Bach v. Pataki, 408 F.3d 75, 84, 86 (2d Cir. 2005) (holding “that the Second Amendment’s ‘right to keep and bear arms’ imposes a limitation on only federal, not state, legislative efforts” and noting that this outcome was compelled by Presser), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 1174 (2006).

Heller, a case involving a challenge to the District of Columbia’s general prohibition on handguns, does not invalidate this longstanding principle. See Heller, 128 S. Ct. at 2813 n.23 (noting that the case did not present
the question of whether the Second Amendment applies to the states). And to the extent that Heller might be read to question the continuing validity of this principle, we “must follow Presser” because “[w]here, as here, a Supreme Court precedent ‘has direct application in a case, yet appears to rest on reasons rejected in some other line of decisions, the Court of Appeals should follow the case which directly controls, leaving to the Supreme Court the prerogative of
overruling its own decisions.’” Bach, 408 F.3d at 86 (quoting Rodriguez de Quijas v.
Shearson/Am. Express, Inc., 490 U.S. 477, 484 (1989)) (alteration marks omitted); see also State Oil Co. v. Khan, 522 U.S. 3, 20 (1997).

Thus, N.Y. Penal Law §§ 265.00 through 265.02 do not
violate the Second Amendment."

No comments: