Month: June 2009

The Sotomayor confirmation hearing is going to be a good chance for the Republicans to show us how much better they are than the Democrats when it comes to the Second Amendment, and kudos to DeMint for getting the ball rolling on this.  Here’s another story on her position on the Second Amendment:

Democratic Sen. Mark Udall of Colorado said Sotomayor told him during a private meeting that she considers the 2008 ruling that struck down a Washington, D.C., handgun ban as settled law that would guide her decisions in future cases. In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court held that individuals have a constitutional right to guns.

But the statement gave little comfort to gun rights activists. Conservative Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., said that earlier in the week, Sotomayor told him in a similar closed-door session that she stood by an appellate court decision she signed this year that said the Second Amendment protection from curbs on the right to bear arms applied only to federal laws – not state or local ones.

This position is essentially no different than that of the Brady Campaign.  Democrats may be reluctant to bring this issue up, because of not wanting to jeopardize their President’s nominee, and cross the leadership.  The pro-gun Democrats will be at a disadvantage, and this is an opportunity for Republicans to show us they are better.

I still will not go so far as to say we should scuttle this nomiee.  Let’s see what comes out in the hearings.  It’s not that I don’t think Sotomayor is bad — I think she is.  It’s a real worry that what comes behind her will be worse.

I’m not of the opinion that National Concealed Carry is constitutional under the guise of the commerce clause (possibly something could be done under the 14th Amendment), but I have to agree with Joe’s reasoning:

Although I agree with Linoge on a philosophical basis I also am of the opinion that once our enemies violated that principle (Hughes Amendment, Lautenberg Amendment, etc.) it would be unethical for us to defend our specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms on an unequal playing field. We are only playing by their rules. So when they start whining just tell them something like, “Karma is a bitch ain’t it?”

I’ve heard others express similar sentiment.  I also consider that if such language would kill the hate crime bill, it might be worth a try.  Once the government starts creating hate crimes, they aren’t too far away from creating thought crimes.  In fact, hate crimes are thought crimes, so strike that.