Skip to content

Fox News: Sotomayor Opposes Gun Rights

July 14, 2009

The National Rifle Association’s Wayne LaPierre said on the “Glenn Beck Program” Monday that President Obama‘s Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor does not deserve to be on the high court because she does not support Americans’ right to self-defense.

On the day Sotomayor’s confirmation hearings began, LaPierre stated that the Second Amendment is a “constant” throughout American history. “People want to be free,” he said.

“With a firearm I can protect my family…and Judge Sotomayor doesn’t get that,” LaPierre told Beck. “She should not be on the Supreme Court.”

LaPierre’s right. Sotomayor has ruled that the Second Amendment does not apply to the states. This ruling would permit localities to slap a blanket prohibition of gun ownership if they wanted to do so.

Beck pointed out that Sotomayor’s nomination has been endorsed by the radical left-wing group LatinoJustice (formerly known as the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, on whose board the judge used to sit) and by ACORN (infamous for its aggressive involvement in identity politics). In a press release unveiling the endorsement, ACORN vice president Maria Polanco couldn’t help taking a shot at the U.S. legal system:

As a Latina woman from the Bronx myself, I know today’s historic nomination will provide inspiration to millions of young girls and boys across the country, and provide renewed faith in a justice system that has often failed the poor and powerless.

ACORN has long supported gun control.

(Sotomayor’s opening statement from the confirmation hearing is available here.)

Advertisements
10 Comments
  1. July 14, 2009 9:35 am

    How to defend the 2nd Amendment.

  2. Glen Schorzman permalink
    July 14, 2009 9:55 am

    One wonders what other provisions of the constitution Judge Sotomayor would make optional?

  3. dka permalink
    July 14, 2009 10:32 am

    Sotomayor is covered with a thin veneer trying to ‘get by’. The constitution means nothing to her! She wants to get in, then she will do the work for Acorn and other political groups who want to take America down.
    Just another czarina that Obama just could not get in through the back door.
    She does not deserve to be on the high court!

  4. James E. McMullen, III permalink
    July 14, 2009 11:05 am

    In the words of Charlton Heston: “…from my cold dead hands.” And I am on record in an interview with our local television station with my opposition to anyone who would step on the Second Amendment.

  5. Alabama Roadrunner permalink
    July 14, 2009 11:54 am

    Too bad she has no logic to her. If the Second Amendment does not apply to the states, then none of the others amendments do either. Therefore, states could control all media within their borders, people could be forced to testify against themselves, and all the federal government would have to do is turn terror suspects over to the states, as the states would not have to guarantee a speedy trial. May some people in the Senate wake up!

  6. July 14, 2009 1:24 pm

    You’re right, Alabama Roadrunner. If the Doctrine of Incorporation (14th Amendment) applies to the states with respect to the other rights in the Bill of Rights why wouldn’t it apply to the Second Amendment?

  7. Roy Pitta permalink
    July 14, 2009 2:44 pm

    Though I am an independent and I’m not a fan of either political party, I am a big supporter of the 2nd Amendment. It was not only to be able to defend ourselves against our homes, but to defend ourselves against our government should it get out of control. I do not like this aspect of our current administration nor of our new Supreme court Nominee, though I do think that she does gartner some merit and has made good decisions in other areas, this is an area that I do not agree with when it comes to her. States rights are to come out of the scope of the Constitution. The Constitution supercedes everything else, and that worries me that she does not acknowledge that fact. As a lawyer and a judge she should understand that completely, so from my perspective she is choosing to ignore this fact and in my eyes this makes her a major liability as she is not to be put on the court to express her own personal beliefs, but to enforce the constitution whether or not she agrees with it.

  8. Linda Rivera permalink
    July 14, 2009 9:21 pm

    It is a hostile act against America that ANTI-CONSTITUTION Sotomayor is nominated for the Supreme Court. Sotomayor’s known radical leftist political beliefs threaten the rights and safety of ALL Americans.

    Unlike Sotomayor and Acorn’s Maria Polanco, the overwhelming majority of Latinos cherish freedom. Cherish the rights the Constitution gives to ALL Americans. MAY WE NEVER LOSE OUR FREEDOM!

  9. marlene permalink
    October 4, 2009 9:59 am

    Who cares what Sotomayor opposes? She’s supposed to uphold the Constitution – period. If she doesn’t and puts in her own personal two cents, throw her off the bench. I’m tired of the press enlightening us on what these for-life (ugh!) judges “feel” about American issues. It’s about time we heard about what the Constitution “says” about American issues. Obviously, the average American can’t think for him/herself – look who they voted for! So enlighten them; educate them; inspire them, and by the way, report some important news for a change AND stop milking yesterday’s news. Of course, I’m not complaining about this great site. I’m complaining about the supremeless court judges, the media, etc. Do you agree?

  10. James E. McMullen, III permalink
    August 20, 2010 5:53 pm

    Tell the broad to “Come And Take It”

Comments are closed.