Judge Sonia Sotomayor Describes How Nunchucks Work

Responding to a question about a recent ruling in which Judge Sonia Sotomayor voted to uphold a New York State ban on nunchucks, or nunchaku, Sotomayor went into an extended description of how the weapons work.

HATCH: 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?

SOTOMAYOR: Sir, in Maloney, we were talking about nunchuk sticks.

HATCH: I understand.

SOTOMAYOR: Those are martial arts sticks.

HATCH: Two sticks bound together by rawhide or some sort of a...

SOTOMAYOR: Exactly. And -- and when the sticks are swung, which is what you do with them, if there's anybody near you, you're going to be seriously injured, because that swinging mechanism can break arms, it can bust someone's skull.

HATCH: Sure.

This ruling had previously been raised as an issue by vote-suppression guru Ken Blackwell, among others, who attempted to cite the ruling to show that Sotomayor's nomination was "a declaration of war against America's gun owners."

Comments

[onepotatotwopotato]

Questions for judge Sotomayor:

Do you believe that the Bill of Rights in its entirety, the first ten Amendments to our Constitution, is incorporated against the States by the Fourteenth or any other Amendment to the Constitution or by any other binding legal precedent?

Do you accept the finding of the Court in the case of Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) that the rights of all citizens of the United States include but are not limited to the following, as redacted from the decision of the Court:

"the right to enter every State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, AND TO KEEP AND CARRY ARMS WHEREVER THEY WENT." [emphasis added]

The Court was of course enumerating rights it deemed could be denied to Black Americans. Today those and other rights must be applied equally to all citizens of the United States.

[Mister Wu]

What, she banned numchuks? That's it, the democrats just lost the Kungfu vote.

[onepotatotwopotato]

Sotomayor, 55, told the Senate Judiciary Committee: "I understand how important the right to keep and bear arms is to many people; one of my godchildren is a member of the NRA. I have friends who hunt."

What a racist comment for a sitting judge to make!

What if I were to say that, "I understand how important the right to non-discrimination is to many people; one of my godchildren is a member of the NAACP. I have friends who are Hispanic."?

Our rights are important to all of us. To imply that rights only apply to some who are directly affected by them or that having friends who belong to a certain group makes one open-minded is outmoded thinking and unacceptable for a Supreme Court justice today.

[onepotatotwopotato]

Sotomayor, 55, told the Senate Judiciary Committee: "I understand how important the right to keep and bear arms is to many people; one of my godchildren is a member of the NRA. I have friends who hunt."

What a racist statement for a judge to make!
What if I were to say, "I understand how important the right to non-discrimination is to many people; one of my godchildren is a member of the NAACP. I have friends who are Hispanic."?

Are civil rights only important to minorities?
Does having minority friends make you tolerant?

[1differentdrummer]

Maybe the 2nd applies only to flintlock weapons. Is that possible? Just kidding.

[onepotatotwopotato]

"...to disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380)

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46 at 243- 244)

"the ultimate authority ... resides in the people alone," (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in Federalist Paper #46.)

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States" (Noah Webster in An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution', 1787, a pamphlet aimed at swaying Pennsylvania toward ratification, in Paul Ford, ed., Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States, at 56(New York, 1888))

[HerCabinBoy]

I'm quite sure that, over time, many courts have made incorrect decisions regarding the Second. The historical context needs to be understood. In the late 1700's, the federal government could not equip the militia as we can equip our services today, so citizens had to "keep and bear" their arms themselves. The Second Militia Act of 1792 describes what items a Soldier had to carry, and that the Soldier had to personally pay for these items and show up for training equipped.

The Second Amendment's intent was that neither the Federal Government nor state/local governments can "infringe" the citizens who comprise the militia from owning and maintaining the weapons they purchased at their own expense because it is "necessary to the security of a free state."

Thus, any arguments that the Second does not apply to the states are wrong, including Sotomayor's in Cuomo vs. Maloney.

Continued below

[sixletters]

It's an absolute shame that this brilliant woman has to be subjected to questions from these numbnuts.

[onepotatotwopotato]

There is ample reason to oppose any judge who does not believe that the Bill of Rights should apply to the States or that those rights are not "fundamental". The right to "keep and bear arms" (to own and carry guns) is simply the most basic of those rights which underpins all the others.

[onepotatotwopotato]

Unfortunately, Judge Sotomayor's judicial record and testimony clearly demonstrate a hostile view of the Second Amendment and the fundamental right of self-defense guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution.

It is only by ignoring history that any judge can say that the Second Amendment is not a fundamental right and does not apply to the states. The one part of the Bill of Rights that Congress clearly intended to apply to all Americans in passing the Fourteenth Amendment was the Second Amendment. History and congressional debate are clear on this point.

Yet Judge Sotomayor seems to believe that the Second Amendment is limited only to the residents of federal enclaves such as Washington, D.C. and does not protect all Americans living in every corner of this nation. In her Maloney opinion and during the confirmation hearings, she deliberately misread Supreme Court precedent to support her incorrect view.

In last year's historic Heller decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment guarantees the individual's right to own firearms and recognizes the inherent right of self-defense. In addition, the Court required lower courts to apply the Twentieth Century cases it has used to incorporate a majority of the Bill of Rights to the States. Yet in her Maloney opinion, Judge Sotomayor dismissed that requirement, mistakenly relying instead on Nineteenth Century jurisprudence to hold that the Second Amendment does not apply to the States.

[Clearing-Brush]

Hatch is such a major nunchuck. He should be banned too.

[onepotatotwopotato]

Sotomayor, 55, told the Senate Judiciary Committee: "I understand how important the right to keep and bear arms is to many people; one of my godchildren is a member of the NRA. I have friends who hunt."

What a racist comment for a sitting judge to make!

What if I were to say that, "I understand how important the right to non-discrimination is to many people; one of my godchildren is a member of the NAACP. I have friends who are Hispanic."?

Our rights are important to all of us. To imply that rights only apply to some who are directly affected by them or that having friends who belong to a certain group makes one open-minded is outmoded thinking and unacceptable for a Supreme Court justice today.

[LetMeUnderstandThis]

Smart Woman intimidate smart men and terrify dumb ones.

[breakingpoint]

"bust someone's skull"

is she from Jersey?

[NotesFromME]

The Bronx, I think.

[OdinsEye]

Bronx.

[navalvet]

No, she is from across the Hudson, in the Bronx, NY.

[Nommo]

A Jerseyan would bust his or her own skull.

[breakingpoint]

I wonder if she could kick Scalia's ass

[Decipherer]

What exit?

[KHAAANNN]

Meanwhile, Jeff Sessions spent his time describing how "Num-Nuts" work.

[Decipherer]

How 'bout them ears, eh? Also.

[ZimboChick]

u betcha!

[rpasley]

Can someone please explain to me...

If her ruling struck down the NY law enacted to prohibit the possession of nunchucks, why would that NOT be "legislating from the bench"? It seems to me that, to a strict constructionist, "arms" would be defined as those instruments that are weapons required by a well regulated militia. Nunchucks have no history as such and certainly do not meet that standard, so utilizing any Second Amendment defense is arbitrary.

For Sen Hatch to suggest that her ruling reveals her willingness to ignore the Constitution's 2nd Amendment tells me that he'd be more supportive of Sotomayor "legislating" that the 2nd Amendment applies.

[wolfmason]

See People of the State of New York v. Footclan, 1989

[cjk002]

LOL

[OdinsEye]

" It seems to me that, to a strict constructionist, "arms" would be defined as those instruments that are weapons required by a well regulated militia."

Incorrect. The militia phrase does not restrict, limit, or define "arms" in the Second Amendment.

[Decipherer]

I am not a serious student of the Second Amendment, but I suspect the Framers didn't have things like tomahawks or bows & arrows in mind when they referred to "arms."

"Well-regulated militias" of the day, mostly of European heritage, had a preference for long rifles, pistols, and that sort of thing.

Just a guess.

[legaleagle 45]

Except that Heller did not over rule Miller, and Miller did assert something along those lines, although the exact wording in Miller was to the effect that it protects only those weapons which would be useful to the militia, which implies that all people would have the right to same rather than merely members of the well regulated militia. This portion of Miller relied upon an 1846 Tennesee case named Amyette which removes all doubt about what exactly the Miller Court was talking about. The issue in Amyette involved bowie knives, which the court determined were weapons of thugs and criminals and had no purpose or use in a well regulated militia. It also concluded that if a weapon serves a useful purpose in a well regulated militia, the right to keep such a weapon was absolute and was not confined to members of a well regulated militia.... Now whether SCOTUS should over rule Miller is another question entirely. If not, a valid argument could be made under Miller that the weapon at issue in Maloney was not protected by the 2nd... but no such argument was presented and the ruling was not based upon that at all.

[Sumocat]

Nunchuck ban was state law. She ruled in favor of upholding the law. End of story.

[kylennblack]

She's a ninja too! Awesome!

Love her!

[RadicalRepublican]

I like the way she answered the question. Basically, any other ruling would say that governments cannot make rules. I just don't like the ruling. It seems that conservatives want freedom to posess firearms and to preach to everyone their religion but they want to control peoples use of pot. and women's bocies. And then you've got the liberals who realize that banning pot at the national level is intrusive but they want to ban gun ownership. I'm NRA, ACLU and FORR and I believe in liberty.

[wolfmason]

I'm yet to meet a liberal that actually wants to ban all guns (meaning hunting rifles, as well as handguns, automatics, etc.). Anyone out there actually ascribe to total disarmament of the public, or can we push that into category of Fear-Mongering?

[onnyang]

PUSH IT OVER THE CLIFF!!!

[OdinsEye]

I believe there are a couple posters here on HuffPo who do support a complete ban on firearms, but they are a minority. Just as are people who believe that there should be absolutely no restrictions on firearms.

[Sam1234567]

"The Second Amendment applies only to limitations the federal government seeks to impose on this right." Judge Sonia Sotomayor

So she believes the Govt has the right to determine our right to own a gun.....Not that it is inherit right granted by the 2nd amendment.

[cjk002]

I've yet to meet a liberal who wants to ban all guns, and I live in San Francisco.

[jab2ur]

Agree.