Nice Summary of 2nd Amendment from Tuesday's Elections

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

cavman

Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2005
Messages
1,002
Location
Maine
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o...ents-great-2010-election-night-106717148.html


Nice summary of individual state race outcomes, from House, Senate, and Governor.

also covers results in races in individual States.

It covers several Constitutional amendments that were incorporated in a State's Constitution that I was unaware of! very nice.

Discusses some of the Congressional Committee changes that should benefit 2nd Amendment (now going to be Chaired by strong proponents, Republican, as they won the House) as the Bills may now actually make it out of Committee and get an actual Vote.
 
The article makes two assertions with which the facts do not agree and one oversight that rankles me.

1: To my knowledge, at no point since Sotomayor was confirmed to the USC has the USC revisited DC v Heller. The article claims she voted to overturn DC v Heller. This is just a stupid assertion to make.

2: The article's claim that the notion of the RKBA as a collective right, rather than an individual right first came to light the Kansas SC case Salina v Blakesly is belied by the fact that the Massachusetts state constitution of 1780 and the North Carolina state constitution of 1776 specifically outline the RKBA as a collective right, not an individual right.

3: No mention is made of the fact that VT went from a Governor with a qualified A rating from the NRA to a true A rating. Of course, this would force them to acknowledge that the seat also went from a Republican to Democrat.
 
LemmyCaution said:
1: To my knowledge, at no point since Sotomayor was confirmed to the USC has the USC revisited DC v Heller. The article claims she voted to overturn DC v Heller. This is just a stupid assertion to make.
Click to expand...

SCOTUS hasn't "revisited" the Heller decision per se, but Sotamayor signed onto Breyer's dissent in McDonald, which continued to argue that the Second Amendment doesn't guarantee an individual right.
 
hirundo82 said:
SCOTUS hasn't "revisited" the Heller decision per se, but Sotamayor signed onto Breyer's dissent in McDonald, which continued to argue that the Second Amendment doesn't guarantee an individual right.
Click to expand...

What you write here is factually correct. However, the article makes the unsupportable claim that Sotomayor voted to overturn DC v Heller. That is an entirely different kettle of fish.

Breyer's dissent is utterly specious and willfully ignores ample sources that influenced the founders as they drafted the BoR that specifically address an individual right to armed self defense in order to argue that the 2a is a quaint relic of pastoral days gone by. Sotomayor should rightfully be castigated for signing on to it.

But stating that her signing on to it constitutes an attempt to overrule Heller is a low form of hyperbolic fear mongering that I'm really quite sick of from the gun community.

The article was quite good, otherwise.
 
LemmyCaution said:
But stating that her signing on to it constitutes an attempt to overrule Heller is a low form of hyperbolic fear mongering that I'm really quite sick of from the gun community.
Click to expand...
To say such is technically incorrect and could be considered fearmongering, but I think it is a strong indication that Justice Sotamayor would vote to overturn Heller should the opportunity arise.

It's good to remind people that some of the most enduring consequences of elections are the judges that are confirmed during the term, and that the Second Amendment has only the slimmest of majorities on the Supreme Court.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top