for individuals. She believes the states should be allowed to decide individually. My my my. One little time you pull out a thread and where will it lead. I would suppose based on her philosphy if the 2nd isn't a right,....then none of the above are rights either.

were is your proof, your a documented liar.

prove your thesis, otherwise is just more hot air from the fray's biggest liar.

Read her written rulings on the subject. Then you can repost with an apology.

Therefore for it's flawed according to Soto

Have you read them? You do realize that she was part of a 3 judge panel that ruled on nunchakas in New York? You do realize that the echo chamber is manipulating you through your cowardice?

Second Amendment rights

Sotomayor was part of the three-judge Second Circuit panel that affirmed the district court's ruling in Maloney v. Cuomo (2009).[81] Maloney was arrested for possession of nunchakus, which are illegal in New York; Maloney argued that this law violated his Second Amendment right to bear arms. The Second Circuit's per curiam opinion noted that the Supreme Court has not, so far, ever held that the Second Amendment is binding against state governments. On the contrary, in Presser v. Illinois, a Supreme Court case from 1886, the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment "is a limitation only upon the power of Congress and the national government, and not upon that of the state."[citation needed] With respect to the Presser v. Illinois precedent, the panel stated that the recent Supreme Court case of District of Columbia v. Heller (which struck down the district's gun ban as unconstitutional) "does not invalidate this longstanding principle."[citation needed] Thus, the Second Circuit panel upheld the lower court's decision, [82] thereby ruling that Maloney was not permitted to possess nunchakus in New York.

<link>

If the seconed ammendemnt is not "binding" on the states, then neither would the 1st be. Nor the entire constitution.

MrB.....you're exactly right.

That is an interesting point Worldly.

I doubt that Sotomayor would say that. But it does point out a possible problem with the "strict constructionist" view of Constitutional interpretation.

After all, the founding fathers were men and not "divinities." Even they knew that their perspectives were limited and the world might change.

Over 120 years ago the Supreme Court, in Presser v. Illinois, ruled in that the Second Amendment "is a limitation only upon the power of Congress and the national government, and not upon that of the State."

Actually, the founders who were white males, knew the world would change and allowed for the constitution to be amended or repealed legally by votes. But democrats never try to change the constitution legally, they just try to change the meaning of the words.

in 2008, the Supreme Court ruled on the 2nd amendment saying you can have your gun and the state can regulate it.

Sotomayor respects stare decisis.

What she ruled on was Supreme Court precedent...not national or state precedent. That's what stands. When the Supremes rule definitively, then so will the Appeals courts. You also missed the part about 3 judge panel.

Why am I not surprised that you can't get your head around that fact.

That is not what the founding fathers thought.

And language and the meanings of words change over time and new words are invented to cover new circumstances.

Take a look at this: Online Etymology Dictionary

So Free now means HANDOUT?

When I go to the grocery store and someone offers me a "free sample," I would just call that a handout. How about you?

What do you have in mind?