Gun-rights advocates' new target: Sotomayor
By AMY D'ONOFRIO
Copyright 2009 Houston Chronicle Washington Bureau
July 12, 2009, 1:02AM

WASHINGTON — It didn't take long for Gun Owners of America to realize that Sonia Sotomayor was going to be a potent political weapon for gun-rights advocates.

Within days of President Barack Obama's selection of Sotomayor for the U.S. Supreme Court, the group's Web site labeled the New York appeals court judge an anti-gun radical who “has racked up an anti-Second Amendment record and has displayed contempt for the rule of law under the Constitution.”

The issue is particularly commanding in Texas, where gun-rights advocates and lobbyists continue to press for additional rights, including the carrying of guns on college campuses.

“People see this as a huge, huge issue,” said Erich Pratt, spokesman for the Virginia-based organization. “It's putting a judge on the court that could invalidate good (gun-rights) decisions.”

Weeks after Second Amendment defenders decided to target Sotomayor's nomination to the high court, it's becoming clear that her views on the rights of Americans to bear arms will become a flash point for Republicans trying to derail her nomination — or, at a minimum, to score political points with social conservatives.

Sotomayor has been questioned privately about her gun-rights position by senators including Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas. And her record has been questioned publicly by four key GOP members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which will begin her confirmation hearings on July 13, including Texas Sen. John Cornyn.

While Cornyn and the other senators say they don't want to prejudge Sotomayor, they and critics all point to her ruling in a January 2009 decision in a New York case called Maloney v. Cuomo as a warning sign that she may not believe the right to bear arms is a bedrock constitutional guarantee.
Attack strategy

The case upheld the state's ban on possessing chukka sticks, a weapon used in martial arts. As part of the decision, which Sotomayor joined, the judges noted that while the Supreme Court decided last year that the Second Amendment gave citizens the right to keep and bear arms, “it is settled law, however, that the Second Amendment applies only to limitations the federal government seeks to impose on this right,” and not to limitations imposed by states.

“She essentially denied that the right to keep and bear arms was a fundamental right,” says Cornyn.

In many ways, the gun issue is a clever way for Republicans to attack Sotomayor — allowing them to ask legitimate, tough questions about her judicial record without getting caught in the political thicket of sexism or racism.

The gun issue also can be used to put Democratic senators on the defensive in swing states. Brian Walsh, spokesman for the National Republican Senatorial Committee, noted that this issue could come into play in Senate races for Democratic-held seats in Arkansas, Colorado, Nevada and North Dakota — “places where citizens value the Second Amendment a great deal,” he noted.
‘Raised the question'

Already, Republican senators are probing to see whether they can pin Sotomayor down. When Hutchison met with Sotomayor in early June, the Dallas Republican said a key concern was Sotomayor's opinion in the Maloney case.

“I specifically raised the question with Judge Sotomayor as to whether she believes that Second Amendment rights are fundamental,” Hutchison recalled. “With this issue potentially coming before the Supreme Court, it is critically important we confirm a justice who believes the Second Amendment is a fundamental individual right.”

That's certainly the view of gun groups, which boast of increased membership and gun sales since Obama's election as president.

Last week, the nation's largest gun-rights organization, the National Rifle Association, sent a letter to congressional leaders demanding “the most serious questioning possible” during Sotomayor's upcoming confirmation hearing.

NRA Executive Director Chris W. Cox said the judge's decisions “have been dismissive of the Second Amendment and have troubling implications for future cases that are certain to come before the court.”

If the nominee's answers are “hostile or evasive,” Cox added, “we will have no choice but to oppose her nomination to the court.”

amy.d'onofrio@chron.com

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/6525365.html

I'm cranky

I'm cranky

careful Thomas....I support the NRA

OK so she thinks a nun-chhakka is not an arm. I agree. Arm (IMHO) is a weapon designed to hunt with that uses a propellent.

Nun-chucks are NOT used for hunting.

Where does she stand on guns... What is her record on that?

The one thing everyone is not considering is the 4th leg.

A three legged stool fails more often than a four legged chair.

WE are the forth leg of the constitution.

Our function is to STAND when the basic principles of our constitution have been shunted aside.

Until that actually happens who are we to judge the judge before she judges when it matters.

Just because she has not yet judged a case on the SCOTUS does not mean she has not made judgments that "matter" as a judge on lower courts. We absolutely can - and SHOULD - use those previous decisions to determine her fitness for the highest court in the land.