I agree with other "replys" on this matter that AHSA has it wrong about President Obama and our newest supreme court justice. We shall see soon enough if Mr. Schoeanke's predictions are true. I, myself believe that the now Justice Sotomayor will show her true colors about the 2nd Amendment and other issues that are cornerstones to freedom and liberty. I would challenge Mr. Schoeanke to explain his failure to predict her un-constitutional leanings.
I hope I am wrong about her, and if I am I will admit it. But what about you Mr. Schoeanke......will you?

The recent vote by the Senate Judiciary Committee in favor of Judge Sonia Sotomayor's nomination to the Supreme Court marks a turning point in Latino politics and will likely result in the first Latina appointed to the high court. People are anxiously awaiting news about her nomination. Currently, the Senate committee handling Sonia Sotomayor hasn't confirmed her to the bench, but approved her to be voted on. In other words, they voted on whether or not she should be voted on. It seems to take payday loans at least to understand how these things work. She's been accused of being an activist judge, which is a code word for when a judge makes decisions that are legally valid that conservatives don't like, like backing civil rights, for instance. At any rate, Sonia Sotomayor won't need unsecured loans if she does take the Bench.

Cant believe you support Obama or Sotomayor....God what are you people thinking with....Not the head on your shoulders for sure

I posted an earlier comment on Mr. Johnson viewpoint that I disagreed with. I wasn't sure that it would be posted, due to the fact that I was so in disagreement with his views. But after just reading a couple of views in this part, I now believe that it will be posted. So it appears that you believe in the 1st Admin, good for you. Why on God's Green earth your group supports Obama is beyond me. He is clearly anti gun, his appointments are anti gun, he comes from a state that is anti gun, his own minister (past) is a known rascist. The 2nd admin is, at least in my mind, is a right that had should importance placed on it that only one was before it, free speech. Mr. Obama, as a black man should embrass it. The 1968 gun control act was a russ to simply keep firearms out of the blacks hands, so that they could not defend themselfs against a currupt goverment. More and more blacks understand that gun control was a way of keeping them in their place. As for this groups seeming believe that the 2nd admin is only for hunters. Sorry, look closely, and you'll see that the purpose of the 2nd admin is to give up the ability to overthrow a currupt goverment. For that purpose we do in fact need automatic weapons, etc... The fact that goverment troops aren't allowed to be used on American soil against our own people is also for that very reason. The Armed services must stand aside if we the people chose to overthrow this goverment. The goverment should fear the people, not the other way around. With people like Eric Holder in goverment, a known anti gunner and you as a group, still suport Obama, whats wrong with you. President Obama did in fact reportly tell the Mexican Pres that he didn't see any reason not to be able to get more gun control in America. You know we had a Radio Jock here named Earl Pitts, and he had a saying, "Wake up America!" Well, we all should before we find ourselfs disarmed. Orwell 1984

Member:
Gun ownership is a civil right. It is not a right-wing, centrist, or left-wing value (despite what LaPierre said at CPAC about guns being a "conservative" value.) AHSA does not support a renewed assault weapons ban, and wishes you luck in deer season or in target shooting with whatever semi-auto AR-15, SKS, or AK-47 you feel like buying. Sotomayor affirmed her support for the Heller decision this week and has made stronger statements in favor of the 2nd Amendment as an individual right than she has regarding the individual right to privacy--so much for the anti-gun agenda.

Your assertions of what the president said regarding a renewed assault weapons ban and on the CIFTA treaty are misinformed. Given the behavior of Chavez and other leaders, the US is poised to be a prime beneficiary of the CIFTA treaty. But, yes, we also agree with the point that if CIFTA is implemented, there must be assurances made--in the treaty itself or elsewhere--clarifying that the 2nd Amendment will not be abridged.

What kind of group are you people. Your name says you support the 2nd ammendment and hunting but your doctrine is very left and anti-gun. You endorsed Mr. Obama who told the Mexican president that a second assault rifle ban would be "easy to do." The guns confiscated in Mexico and said to have been bought in the US are full automatic military assult rifles. The "assult rifle ban" doesn't cover these guns, it covers semiautomatic firearms. My deer rifle is more powerful than and AR-15 but you want it banned? You people tout some messed up "common sense gun laws."

The problem is ... existing rulings in both Cruikshank http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Cruikshank and Presser http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presser_v._Illinois are also precedents, done shortly after the civil war before modern theories on incorporation, AND rule out incorporating the 2nd amendment to limit laws in states and cities. Sotomayor has already accepted those as valid precedent in her rulings, meaning that she still accepts those highly outdated legal rulings.

When you support her, you are supporting a SCOTUS judge who will rule AGAINST limiting local gun control based on the 2nd amendment. Is that what you mean to do? Shouldn't we support a judge most likely to take a modern view of incorporation and rule against Cruikshank/Presser?

Ms. Sotomayor is clearly in favor of limiting our second amendment rights, and without incorportation to the States/Local governments, Heller is not very meaningful.