July 15, 2009 4:25 AM

Sotomayor Pressed On Gun Rights, Second Amendment

By
Declan McCullagh
Topics
Social Issues
(AP)
The twin questions of whether Americans have the constitutional right to keep and bear arms, and precisely what Judge Sonia Sotomayor thinks of that proposition, have surfaced this week during her U.S. Senate confirmation hearings.

Both questions are timely. In two separate cases before the 2nd Circuit, Sotomayor took a narrow view of the Second Amendment right of self-defense, and her more recent decision is likely to end up before the U.S. Supreme Court later this year.

That case is called Maloney v. Rice, and it addresses whether the Second Amendment can be invoked to strike down restrictive laws against weapons that individual states have enacted.

A three-judge panel including Sotomayor unanimously rejected that view in January 2009, ruling that the Second Amendment "imposes a limitation on only federal, not state, legislative efforts." All members of the panel agreed with this sentiment, but because the opinion was unsigned, it's not clear who wrote it.

"As a result of this very permissive legal standard -- and it is permissive -- doesn't your decision in Maloney mean that virtually any state or local weapons ban would be permissible?" asked Sen. Orrin Hatch, the Utah Republican, during Tuesday's meeting of the Senate Judiciary committee.

During the exchange, which bounced back and forth for a few minutes, Sotomayor said: "Well, the government can remedy a social problem that it is identifying or a difficulty it's identifying (as long as the law) reasonably seeks to achieve that result. In the end, it can't be arbitrary and capricious." (In other words, many anti-gun laws enacted by states might end up being perfectly constitutional, as long as they weren't "arbitrary and capricious.")

Whether Sotomayor's three-judge panel got it right is still being debated even among writers who are generally pro-Second Amendment. Reason.com's Jacob Sullum thinks it's defensible, while George Mason University constitutional law professor Nelson Lund believes she "completely ignored" precedents and noted the Supreme Court said such analysis is "required."

The Maloney case is one of a number of legal attempts to protect gun rights that have arisen after a landmark Supreme Court case last year. In that case, D.C. v. Heller, the justices ruled that the Second Amendment shields an individual right and Washington, D.C.'s gun ban was unconstitutional. But the justices explicitly chose to wait until a future case to decide how state laws would be affected.

Lawyers for Maloney filed an appeal -- also known as a petition for certiorari -- to the Supreme Court on June 26. (The second case is also being appealed from the 7th Circuit, and the third may be heard a second time by the full 9th Circuit before it heads to the high court. Unlike the other two circuits, the 9th Circuit concluded that the Second Amendment does apply to the states.)

In some sense, if Sotomayor adheres to the identical views as the man she's been selected to succeed -- retiring justice David Souter -- not much will change in terms of Second Amendment jurisprudence. Souter disagreed with Heller's 5-4 majority opinion, signing a dissent that said: "The majority's decision threatens severely to limit the ability of more knowledgeable, democratically elected officials to deal with gun-related problems."

But because last year's majority was so slender, Sotomayor's vote on the Second Amendment and the states might matter more than usual. Which prompted Democrats to attempt to portray her rulings as entirely consistent with Supreme Court precedent, while Republicans tried to extract a promise that she would not participate in the current round of post-Heller cases if confirmed.

On Tuesday, Sotomayor said she would recuse herself if ruling -- effectively on whether to overrule herself -- only in the Maloney case.

"My own judgment is that it would seem odd, indeed, if any justice would sit in review of a decision that they authored," she said. "I would think that the judicial code of ethics that govern recusals would suggest and command that that would be inappropriate."

She did not agree, however, to recuse herself if the Supreme Court hears another case involving very similar material from the 7th or 9th circuits. "What I would do in this situation, I would look at the practices of the justices to determine whether or not that would counsel to recuse myself," she said. "I would just note that many legal issues, once they come before the court, present a different series of questions than one addresses at the circuit court."

A few minutes later, Sen. Jon Kyl, an Arizona Republican, quoted a federal law that says: "Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned." He also noted that Chief Justice John Roberts said he would recuse himself from matters in which he participated while a judge on the Court of Appeals.

What if the 2nd, 7th, and 9th Circuit cases were combined before the Supreme Court, Kyl asked. Sotomayor replied: "It's impossible to say. I will recuse myself on any case involving Maloney. How the other cert is granted, and whether joint argument is presented or not, I would have to wait to see what happens."

The judge also stressed that she understood "how important the right to bear arms is to many, many Americans" and said some of her friends are gun owners and hunters.

Without unequivocal statements from Sotomayor about the scope of the Second Amendment, the outcome of Tuesday's Judiciary Committee hearing is unlikely to change any minds. It won't convince gun rights groups to waver in their opposition to her nomination; nor, on the other hand, is it likely to imperil her chances in a Senate controlled by Democrats.

  • Declan McCullagh is the chief political correspondent for CNET. Declan previously was a reporter for Time and the Washington bureau chief for Wired and wrote the Taking Liberties section and Other People's Money column for CBS News' Web site.

Add a Comment See all 137 Comments
by patriot_bob July 16, 2009 12:46 PM EDT
To Mortarman29
"Here is always my proposal...you want a right to privacy in the Constitution? Put it in there. Yo uwant to be able to limit arms in the hands of the people, or even do away with them? Then change or abolish the 2nd Amendment. "

Be careful for what you wish. I predict that within Obama's first term he will propose a convention to change the Constitution.
Reply to this comment
by jonathansj July 15, 2009 11:15 PM EDT
to summarize, when the Hispanic culture came to America. Mexico was part of it, Mexico was the most advanced civilization on the earth. with more than 10 times the gold of all other nations combined and advanced medicine and agricultural developments like environmentally resistant grain preservation and storage. paved roads, freedom and accounting and government sponsored agriculture..
the Hispanics committed a rape murder genocide enslavement that was just something they started in Africa and brought to what was then " America". Sam Houston fought the civil was against their genocidal slave colony and was quagmire by bird flue and had to retreat to Texas where he abolished them. their propaganda campaign to defend this is still in full whitewash mode to this day. we have more pure Germans in the usa than there are in Germany. but they have always spoken English. and we don't have Nazis. (my family is descended from Americans. gram maw was the first modern doctor in history(apothecary))why are Hispanics not taught English and freedom? why "sub minimum wage"? subminimum wage earners seem to supplement their income by auto and health insurance fraud and charitable insolvent loans from their fat cat slave bosses right under out noses. its probably responsible for the economic collapse. if we don't want top end up like Mexico, going from gold eating utensils to bisk, we need to avoid Hispanic culture proliferation. why does this person associate herself with "Hispanics"? she speaks English. has a normal wage job, so why? lets not go don't that road. this is America. . its composed of all cultures. its called the u.s.a. . if she wanted to represent the law of our great nation, she should have said she was American and not pronounced Hispanic as as Hispanics, but innocent or whatever. even if she was born in Mexico. slavery is bad for our economy. Mexico has no almost zero paved roads. almost no streetlights. at night you can clearly see the brooder of the usa and Mexico. the usa is lit, Mexico is pitch black. that why i can't condone the Hispanic proliferation of the usa. slavery is wrong for the usa.
Reply to this comment
by pythagoras199 July 15, 2009 9:40 PM EDT
It's funny how people, including the author of the article and probably the POTUS, assume they know Sotomayor's position on gun control or whether she thinks that the 2nd amendment should be incorporated against the states. No one knows. Her decision in Maloney was nothing other than what was required by 2nd circuit precedent.
Reply to this comment
by gunownerdan July 15, 2009 5:30 PM EDT
I, GunOwnerDan, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion....So help me God.


Now I have something in common with every single soldier and law enforcement officer in America and as long as we take this oath seriously and obey it there will be nothing to fear.
Reply to this comment
by All_pols_need_2_go July 15, 2009 3:09 PM EDT
What I find so amusing about the gun grabbers in this thread is that they actually think they will disarm the general population. Can any of you would be gun grabbers tell us how you plan to get everyones guns away from them when the very logic and ideals you subscribe to would seemingly prevent you from owning or using a firearm yourself?

History has shown that those attending gun fights without guns are usually going to be losers. I can pretty much assure you a quick loss and hasty retreat should you ever even try to collect the guns. Think you have inner city violence wait till every fed up hunter, target shooter and former Vet that risked their life to defend that 2nd Amendment along with the rest takes up positions all over and starts to pop off the gun grabbers be they cops or feds whoever. What you fail to realize is that when you outlaw all guns your will make criminals of all legal gun owners, what more you fail to understand is that at that very moment we will no longer care if we are considered criminals all we will care about is erradicating those of you that would take away our rights our families have fought and died for to defend. If you think any of us will let that happen no matter what law gets passed you really out of your mind. Cops won't go into some hoods now for fear of their lives. Wonder how they will feel if they are charged to try and collect all the guns when they figure out they are now being targeted by EVERYONE that has a gun and refuses to give it up. I have guns I inherited from men that DIED for those rights, do you really think I am just going to hand them over because some African President who probably has never has a family member killed in action of this country and latino Judge say I have to? LMAO Yeah thats going to happen, SURE it is just keep thinking that. Then when you show up at my home I will be sure to give you all my ammo first as I try to kill every last one of you, if I have to go out trying so be it but I will be damned if some foreigners are going to come here and tell me that the 2nd is no longer valid.
Reply to this comment
by gunownerdan July 15, 2009 2:28 PM EDT
All Americans should watch the new free video called "NO GUNS FOR NEGROES" from JPFO.
It is very important that we learn about the racist roots of American gun control laws,
the same laws that are now being supported by Obama and his administration.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nckgyfGbdnU
www.JPFO.org
Reply to this comment
by All_pols_need_2_go July 15, 2009 1:56 PM EDT
by o_the_potus July 15, 2009 9:11 AM EDT
by Mortarman29 July 15, 2009 9:06 AM EDT
Potus, of course repealing the 2nd Amendment will get NO guns off the street. How silly!

_____________________________________________________

Yeah, law enforcement would have to do that.

_____________________________________________________

I'll admit most cops aren't to bright. But I can assure you if you think the local PD is going to be willing to go to each and every home and try to confiscate the guns your crazy. Anyone that even wanted that job would have ot be crazy and odds are you wouldn't live out the 1st week of trying. The only real gun viloence you hear about now is thugs and spree shooters. You want real violence just think about going after every gun out there. Not only can you not collect them and if you could then why not collect the 30 million illegals 1st? More than 200 million guns and your going to get them all, right and I am going to hit the Powerball tonight too! See the main problem with outlawing guns is that just because a piece of paper says they are now illegal isn't going to mean jack to those that think the Constitution trumps any law and will fight to uphold it. The politicians couldn't stand the blood shed that would follow after one week and reverse course. Not to mention if they think they are targets now let them ban guns and see how long they survive. In the end those with the guns make the rules, that will never change. If you don't want to defend yourself fine be a lemming I will defend myself and my family no matter what politician or judge says otherwise. These same people you think will collect guns can't control a few city blocks from gangs that don't even know how to use their guns effectively. What are the odds they will disarm every hunter and target shooter out there that actually knows how to use their weapon? Slim to none. At least we won't have to worry about paying out more government pensions as no one will ever see retirement. Can't wait to see the want ad for that job LMAO.
Reply to this comment
by talk_down_2_you July 15, 2009 1:25 PM EDT
Does Senator Sessions looks as much like Howdy Dowdy today as he did yesterday? Sadly, I'm from his state, what an embarrassment. He stutters as much as one of the clowns from Green Acres. Alabama used to have fairly intelligent Senators before the right-wing took over back in the 70's. Heflin and Sparkman did us proud. Now we have banker bought-out clowns.
Reply to this comment
by Mortarman29 July 15, 2009 1:13 PM EDT
I would hope that a wise Causasian male with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina female who hasn't lived that life
Reply to this comment
by stuart2020 July 15, 2009 12:30 PM EDT
by Mortarman29 July 15, 2009 12:22 PM EDT
No. They were addressing the right of the people to own the instruments of the soldier to be able to defend their liberties.
-----------------

So does that interpret to mean than whenever we feel our rights are being violated we have the constitutional rights to take up arms?

Does that mean that if a gang-banger tries to bully an old lady out of the seat on the subway, she has the right, because her liberties are being violated, to shoot him dead?
Reply to this comment
See all 137 Comments
.

Follow Political Hotsheet

Scroll Left
Scroll Right More »
CBS News on Facebook