What does Helmke mean by this?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Oct 21, 2005
Messages
2,796
.
Sotomayor's Gun Control Positions Could Prompt Conservative Backlash

Earlier this year, President Obama's Supreme Court nominee joined an opinion with the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that Second Amendment rights do not apply to the states.

FOXNews.com

Thursday, May 28, 2009

Judge Sonia Sotomayor could walk into a firestorm on Capitol Hill over her stance on gun rights, with conservatives beginning to question some controversial positions she's taken over the past several years on the Second Amendment.

Earlier this year, President Obama's Supreme Court nominee joined an opinion with the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that Second Amendment rights do not apply to the states.

A 2004 opinion she joined also cited as precedent that "the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right."

Ken Blackwell, a senior fellow with the Family Research Council, called Obama's nomination a "declaration of war against America's gun owners."

Such a line of attack could prove more effective than efforts to define Sotomayor as pro-abortion, efforts that essentially grasp at straws. Sotomayor's record on that hot-button issue reveals instances in which she has ruled against an abortion rights group and in favor of anti-abortion protesters, making her hard to pigeonhole.

But Sotomayor's position on gun control is far more crystallized.

Blackwell, who also ran unsuccessfully to head the Republican National Committee, told FOX News her position is "very, very disturbing."

"That puts our Second Amendment freedoms at risk," he said. "What she's basically saying is that your hometown can decide to suppress your Second Amendment freedoms."

The chief concern is her position in the 2009 Maloney v. Cuomo case, in which the court examined a claim by a New York attorney that a New York law that prohibited possession of nunchucks violated his Second Amendment rights. The Appeals Court affirmed the lower court's decision that the Second Amendment does not apply to the states.

The ruling explained that it was "settled law" that the Second Amendment applies only to limitations the federal government might seek on individual gun rights.

Despite last year's landmark Supreme Court ruling in the District of Columbia v. Heller, in which the court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms, the Maloney ruling determined that case "does not invalidate this longstanding principle" that states are not covered by the Second Amendment. (Another appeals court since the Heller case reached the opposite conclusion.)

Justice David Souter, whom Sotomayor would replace, dissented from the majority decision in D.C. v. Heller, so Sotomayor wouldn't necessarily tip the balance on such issues. But she's joining a split body -- the D.C. case was a 5-4 decision -- and with the Maloney case likely to be appealed to the Supreme Court her presence could be threatening to gun rights groups.

"We have concerns and we have questions," Andrew Arulanandam, public affairs director for the National Rifle Association, told FOXNews.com. He said the NRA would work with members of Congress to have those concerns addressed in the coming months, and that the NRA has researchers looking more closely at Sotomayor's gun rights record.

Ken Klukowski, a fellow and legal analyst with the American Civil Rights Union, predicted this issue would heat up as the confirmation process moves forward.

"If this nomination were not to succeed, it would likely be because of the Second Amendment issue," he said.

Klukowski questioned the brevity of the Maloney decision, which spanned only a few pages, more than the actual conclusion. He said it glossed over decades of relevant legal precedent.

"The idea that you would be the first circuit court to take up this profound, constitutional question after the Supreme Court's landmark ruling and only give it one paragraph is stunning," he said.

But Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said the issue of Sotomayor's gun rights position is being "overblown" since the court was merely following precedent. He agreed that the Heller decision did not mean Second Amendment rights apply to states.

He said any controversy over the issue would be a "red herring."

As interest groups launch a heated campaign to define Sotomayor and draw the battle lines ahead of her confirmation process, the White House has voiced unequivocal confidence in her judgment.

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said Thursday that Obama was "very comfortable with her interpretation of the Constitution being similar to that of his."


What does Helmke mean by this?


Is he disagreeing with Incorporation, who is he agreeing with?

.
 
Helmke is saying that nothing in the Heller opinion changed the long-standing precedent that the 2A does not apply to the states.

He's right that Heller had nothing to do with the incorporation issue. In fact, the court specifically pointed out that it was not deciding incorporation in that opinion.

So, his point was that Heller offered no reason for Sotomayor to give a more thorough analysis of the incorporation issue in the Maloney opinion.
 
If 2 A does not apply to the State, Then that means all the Others (1st 3rd 4th ect) Doesn't apply to the state, Which brings me to the ? who or what do they apply to ?
:banghead::banghead::banghead:
 
If 2 A does not apply to the State, Then that means all the Others (1st 3rd 4th ect) Doesn't apply to the state

Doctrine of selective incorporation has left Second Amendment right to bear arms, the Fifth Amendment right to an indictment by a grand jury, and the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial in civil lawsuit unincorporated.

Too much history to go into, write up on wikipedia is actually quite good although it doesn't touch on the racist basis of much of the opposition to 2A incorporation, Jim Crow laws, disarming of the black populace post Reconstruction etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_(Bill_of_Rights)
 
The amendments you mentioned have been incorporated, id est, held to apply to the states. The second has not.
 
Which brings me to the ? who or what do they apply to ?
Currently, the 2A applies to the federal government (all laws passed by Congress) and all state and local governments within the jurisdiction of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
 
If it helps, the 2nd Circuit has held that the 3rd Amendment is also incorporated. Though the Supreme Court and the other Circuits are silent on the subject.

Looks like the rest of us should keep the guest room made up for the National Guard.

=)

Based on the 7th's response to Holbrook and Guru this week on the 2nd A., it looks like we have our District controversy and the Supremes will have Incorporation of the 2nd on their plate as soon as they ask for it.

Probably be a 5-4 though we might pick up more depending on the argument used.
 
Based on the 7th's response to Holbrook and Guru this week on the 2nd A., it looks like we have our District controversy and the Supremes will have Incorporation of the 2nd on their plate as soon as they ask for it.


So, when could we realistically expect this?

.
 
Since there is no ruling on preemption yet Heller sort of exists in a vacuum. It's a matter of time, but for the moment he's right. Heller doesn't apply to anyone who lives in a state, only to those in DC.

That said, it is truly a matter of time and they all know it but until then they keep telling that same story.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top