From the Fox Forum:
KEN BLACKWELL: Obama Declares War on America’s Gun Owners With Supreme Court Pick
President Obama’s nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor is a declaration of war against America’s gun owners and the Second Amendment to our Constitution. If gun owners mobilize and unite, it’s possible (though unlikely) to stop this radical nominee.
According to Judge Sotomayor, if your state or city bans all guns the way Washington, D.C. did, that’s okay under the Constitution
In the past year, the biggest question courts now face is whether the Second Amendment applies to the states. That may sound crazy, but the reality is that the Bill of Rights only controls the federal government, it doesn’t apply directly to states or cities. Only the parts of the Bill of Rights that are “incorporated” through the Fourteenth Amendment apply to the states.
Since the Heller decision, only two federal appeals courts have written on the Second Amendment. That’s six judges out of about 170. Of those six, three said the Second Amendment does apply to the states. And those judges were out of the liberal Ninth Circuit in California, and included a judge appointed by Bill Clinton and another appointed by Jimmy Carter. — Even leftist judges can get this.
But not Judge Sonia Sotomayor. She is one of only three federal appellate judges in America to issue a court opinion saying that the Second Amendment does not apply to states. The case was Maloney v. Cuomo, and it came down this past January.
That means if Chicago, or even the state of Illinois or New York, wants to ban you from owning any guns at all, even in your own house, that’s okay with her. According to Judge Sotomayor, if your state or city bans all guns the way Washington, D.C. did, that’s okay under the Constitution.
Of course she’s a liberal, you didn’t expect Obama to nominate a die-hard conservative did you? I have been saying since he became a viable candidate that the biggest “change” he could bring to the U.S. is that he may nominate 2 or 3 SC judges.
But there are a lot of “ifs” here. If this case or one like it were to go to the SC, one possible outcome would be that the SC would rule that the 2nd Amendment is not incorporated into the 14th Amendment, and that it is only binding on the federal government. They also might rule that it is incorporated, and then this would be a moot discussion.
If they ruled that the 2nd is not incorporated in the 14th, then some states and cities might try to pass anti-gun legislation. We already know which states and cities those are (NYC, Chicago, NJ, etc…), and guess what? If you believe the 2nd amendment is binding on states and cities, then they are already violating your rights, and why the hell are you living there?
The whole reason that the bill of rights was created and agreed to was that the states were concerned that the fedgov would grow too powerful and they wanted to make sure that it would stay within the carefully defined boundaries of the limited powers they had delegated to it. Look how well that has worked out.
The other thing to consider is this: over forty states have included “second-amendment-type” language in their state constitutions, basically saying “Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state.”
This was the list I was able to find at that site: Pennsylvania, Vermont, North Carolina, Kentucky, Alaska, Hawaii, South Carolina, Alabama, Arizona, Washington, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming, Massachusetts.
So, if the SC rules that the 2nd amendment is not incorporated into the 14th, and that the individual states have the power to legislate inside their own borders with respect to firearms, then (some of) those states are free to pass pro-gun laws as well as anti-gun laws. Think Texas and Montana…Then I guess the oversight and regulation of firearms is no longer within the purview of the ATF and federal government? Those same states that have the power to legislate with respect to firearms can tell the ATF to go pound sand when it comes to gun laws?
I don’t see how the fedgov can have it both ways. The 2nd restricts the fedgov from infringing on citizens’ right to bear arms. If the SC rules that states can legislate what they want regarding firearms, and some state constitutions recognize citizens’ rights to bear arms, then the federal ATF has no more reason for existence, except maybe in Washington DC.
The Freeholder has a post on this subject and ends it with “I think I’ve had about all the Change I can stand.”
Maybe Obama and the Dems will get more change than they want.
