Sotomayor a danger to gun owners

A Democratic senator said Thursday that Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor sees a 2008 ruling affirming Americans' right to own guns for self-defense as settled law. Sen. Mark Udall, D-Colo., said Sotomayor told him at a private meeting that she will work from the high court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller in future cases involving gun rights. The 5-4 ruling struck down the Washington, D.C., handgun ban and imperiled similar prohibitions in other cities.

Gun rights activists have accused Sotomayor of being hostile to gun rights because she was part of a panel that ruled that the Second Amendment protection of the right to bear arms did not apply to state and local governments. In that case, Sotomayor and two other judges on the 2nd Circuit appeals court upheld a New York state law banning the possession of "chuka sticks." They said they were bound by an 1886 Supreme Court ruling, but acknowledged the high court could take a different view, particularly in light of the Heller ruling.

Udall said he asked Sotomayor about her view of the Second Amendment during their visit. "Clearly she spoke to the fact that settled law is just that, and the Heller case has been considered by the court, and she sees that as the law, and she will work off of what the court decided as other cases may come to the court's attention," Udall said.

Other senators have come away from their meetings with Sotomayor concerned about her position on gun rights. Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., said Tuesday that he was disappointed that the judge refused to say during their visit that the Second Amendment "protects a fundamental right that applies to all Americans."

DeMint said Sotomayor's statement on Heller "doesn't tell us much" about her view of the issue, noting that she stands by her ruling that held that the Second Amendment only protects against federal government curbs on the right to bear arms — not state or local limits. "(H)er opinion was that the hundreds of millions of Americans in the 50 states do not have a fundamental right to bear arms. She refused to back away from that opinion in my meeting with her," DeMint said Thursday.

Source







TX: Knife-wielding boyfriend shot: "Officers talked to a 44-year-old woman who said she was threatened by her live-in boyfriend. She said he was intoxicated and they were arguing in the bedroom. Her 24-year-old daughter lives next door and came over when she heard the commotion. At about the same time, the victim’s 22-year-old son showed up. The woman’s children arrived and found the suspect holding a knife to the woman’s throat. Both children asked the suspect to put the knife down and tried to get him to leave. He threatened them, and said they would all be dead before he left. The son left the room, came back with a handgun, and shot Warrior once in the left leg. The suspect was taken to the emergency room in a private vehicle, where police took him into custody and then to jail. His injury was not considered life threatening. The assault victim’s son does not face any charges for the incident because the shooting was considered self-defense.


A Leftist makes the case against gun control: "The gun cannot be un-invented. We can all agree on that, right? So if someone is willing to commit murder, then following the law is clearly not a concern they share with the rest of us, so why would they obey gun control laws? As long as guns exist, what POSSIBLE LAW - come on, seriously, help me out here - what POSSIBLE LAW could prevent someone willing to commit a death-penalty eligible crime from acquiring a gun against the law? Take me down your slippery slope - please - I want to understand your thought process. Even if we completely banned guns and declared "War on Guns" a la our "War on Drugs" - the biggest policy failure in the history of our species - guns would still be as easily and widely available as marijuana. Only then, there would be NO background checks, serial numbers, registration, etc. It's a cliche, but if it's a crime to own a gun then only criminals will own guns. I don't see how anyone could be in favor of that. If complete gun prohibition would not work, then how can anything less than that work? So come on, take me down the path of gun control - explain to me a hypothetical law you'd like passed which you believe would have prevented Von Brunn from committing his act of faith-based terrorism with a firearm."