[1point2]

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=104775347

http://robcrotty.blogspot.com/2009/0...s-in-news.html

Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor doesn't believe that the 2nd amendment restricts the states the way that it restricts the federal government. In other words, she disagrees with the Heller decision (Souter, whose seat Obama intends to fill with Sotomayor, dissented from Heller as well). How someone could reach the conclusion that the 2nd amendment doesn't protect an individual's right to bear arms is beyond me. My gut instinct is that however much I like Souter, and to a lesser degree Sotomayor, they're dreadfully wrong (and possibly intentionally intellectually dishonest) when it comes to guns.

This came up during a case involving nunchucks in NYS. Seriously. She upheld the NYS law against them, a law that apparently (citation needed) came about as a mistake.

I like NPR. However, NPR makes me sad when they repeat the ridiculous claim that NY street gangs mug people with nunchucks. I mean...c'mon. That's not journalism.

[Phrost]

NPR actually claimed that?

Christ, do they get their information from 80's films?

[HappyOldGuy]

The SC very intentionally did not rule on the state vs federal issue in Heller, and it's very much not a simple question. Until the SC clarifies things, Sotomayor made the little c conservative legal decision.

From Heller:

With respect to Cruikshank’s continuing validity on incorporation,
a question not presented by this case, we note that Cruikshank also
said that the First Amendment did not apply against the States and did
not engage in the sort of Fourteenth Amendment inquiry required by
our later cases. Our later decisions in Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252,
265 (1886) and Miller v. Texas, 153 U. S. 535, 538 (1894), reaffirmed
that the Second Amendment applies only to the Federal Government

Which doesn't change the fact that she's a New York liberal, and not likely to be friendly to 2nd amendment rights.

[Phrost]

The idea that an amendment in the motherfucking BILL OF RIGHTS doesn't extend to the entire country should require a cranial enema with Drano.

[HappyOldGuy]

Originally Posted by Phrost

a cranial enema with Drano.

I've heard worse descriptions of law school.

[Ka-Bar]

I'll still never understand the liberal opposition to gun rights. Liberals (like myself) will scream phrases like "separation of church and state" and "right to privacy" at the top of their lungs when neither phrase exists in the Constitution. Yet, when it comes down to a specifically enumerated right; the the right to bear arms, they couldn't be happier than to prevent someone from defending themselves.

[1point2]

Originally Posted by HappyOldGuy

The SC very intentionally did not rule on the state vs federal issue in Heller, and it's very much not a simple question. Until the SC clarifies things, Sotomayor made the little c conservative legal decision.

I didn't understand your reference, but this is a very interesting point, and I intend to keep my ears open for more.

@Ka-Bar, I totally agree. I think it's one of the few areas where the caricatures of liberals jives with my experience: liberals who want to restrict gun rights don't care about the constitutionality of it, and are motivated primarily by a feeling that guns are icky and they don't personally see the appeal.