High Court Supports Gun Owners

The second major ruling which I wanted to pass along was a first ever interpretation of the 2nd amendments, Right To Bear Arms, which had not been looked at to any conclusion, since its' ratification in 1791. Now, I am not a gun owner, but have been in the past, and I do believe the Founding Father's, wanted citizens to have ownership of their "own" guns, just in case our government got out of hand "like it is doing now", and we had to take it back, as well as to provide self-defense against criminals.
Obviously, this ruling will create some consternation among people who want the government( and the criminals)~~(that was an oxymoron wasn't it)~~(should have said government, AND other criminals), to be the only entities with guns, and it should, for these Justices have been confusing this term. Yesterday, they sided with child rapists, and today they sided with gun owners, and the right to self-defense. A big day for All, and I only wonder what kind of suprises they shall have for us, when they reconvene the first Monday in October!!

The story at Yahoo News reads:

Americans can keep guns at home for self-defense, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday in the justices' first-ever pronouncement on the meaning of gun rights under the Second Amendment.

The court's 5-4 ruling struck down the District of Columbia's ban on handguns. The decision went further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most federal firearms restrictions intact.

District of Columbia Mayor Adrian Fenty responded with a plan to require residents of the nation's capital to register their handguns. "More handguns in the District of Columbia will only lead to more handgun violence," Fenty said.

The court had not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. The amendment reads: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

link to full story

High Court Sides WIth Child Rapists

The energy posts will come later, but beings this is the last day of the Supreme Court's session, and important rulings are coming down, I figured we would stay with them for most of today!
There have been two important decisions rendered by the United States Supreme Court in the last two days. One involves the High Court siding with child rapists against their victims, and the other is a huge win for the gun owners, and the Right To Bear Arms.

The first is an absolutely horrendous ruling yesterday, regarding the death penalty for child rapists. I cannot understand how the Supreme Court cannot see how the rape of a child "can" be just as bad as killing them, because they often "kill" their soul, and that is as bad or worse than killing them physically.
I know people who have been through this horrible experience, and where many rape crisis center managers are saying that most times it is a family member or friend, and therefore, it would impact these children to know that they put this person on death row, and may therefore emotionally hurt them even more, "they" don't necessarily speak for all child rape victims. I have had at least two people who are so messed up that they "wish" they had killed the family member rapist, as one of the rapists went on to rape other children, and was never caught, because of their fear of him!!

I also know that many people who just object to the death penalty under any circumstance, so with them I can only respectfully disagree. For child rapists and other sadistic people, such as the man in New York who held the woman for 19 hours, raped her, tortured her, and left her to burn to death, I not only hope he gets the death penalty, but I would not even give him the luxury of a painless death, and believe he should be pushed off a nice building into a industrial sized chipper/shredder (trademark name), with a whole parsel of child rapists, and violent killers to follow. The problem with the death penalty in this country is not that it is used too often, but that it is not used often enough. It is such a drawn out process, it really has no deterrent value whatsoever, as it may take many years to finally bring them to a "just" end.
Oh, that is with the exception of maybe Texas, which as comedian Ron White, says "they not only have the death penalty, but they have an express lane", too funny!! And, Yes I do think that joke is funny!! Should We Pity the poor criminal sitting on death row~~Uh, NO, pity the victims of these criminals, and their families, and friends!!
I also believe in Karma and Reincarnation, so the sooner we can get these people on their way, the sooner, they will be taught a universal lesson, and perhaps make better choices in their next venue, and if I am wrong, then at least let them get started on their sentence in Hell!!

One other quick thing before we get on with the story at Yahoo News, and that is the response by John McCain, and Barack Obama, who both disagreed with the Supreme Court ruling. Now I figured McCain would be against the Court ruling, but I wondered how Obama would respond. I wondered how Obama's "liberal" friends took the news, that he opposed the Court's ruling. I for one was very pleased to hear his endorsement of the death penalty for child rape, "if" the states choose to have it!! Good for you Obama, at least you did not give a Dukakis~type response, and put a whole bunch of people against you, by giving an emotionless liberal response. Your response gave a large segment of this country the view that you are not just a "liberal", but actually can feel for the victims of crimes such as child rape, so Kudos to Senator Obama, and to the other pro-death penalty contingent of politicians on both sides, who are going to work to pass a "Constitutional" law to fix this injustice!

Now I do not believe any non-death penalty proponent can be swayed by any arguments, so I shall not try and will just support the people who are trying to draft legislation that will "pass" the Supreme Court's tests, and if not now, then in the near future when "new" judges are picked to fill future vacancies. If we keep at it, and support the right judges, perhaps we shall get to a point where the Supreme Court will follow the will of the "people", instead of siding with child rapists!! A Special Hope For Patrick Kennedy: "maybe you will not receive "justice" right now, but perhaps some well meaning guard will "make" a mistake, and your fellow "hate child rapist" prisoners, will have the last ruling in your case"!!

The story at Yahoo News is that:

Angry politicians vowed to keep writing laws that condemn child rapists to death, despite a Supreme Court decision saying such punishment is unconstitutional.

"Anybody in the country who cares about children should be outraged that we have a Supreme Court that would issue a decision like this," said Alabama Attorney General Troy King, a Republican. The justices, he said, are "creating a situation where the country is a less safe place to grow up."

The court's 5-4 decision Wednesday derailed the efforts of nearly a dozen states supporting the right to kill those convicted of raping a child — and said execution was confined to attacks that take a life and to other crimes including treason and espionage.


At issue before the high court was a Louisiana case involving Patrick Kennedy, sentenced to die for raping his 8-year-old daughter in her bed, an assault so severe she required surgery. In his majority opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote "the death penalty is not a proportional punishment for the rape of a child," despite the horrendous nature of the crime.
link to full story

Supreme Court Rules In Favor Of Gitmo Detainees

I was just reading the story at Yahoo News, concerning the Supreme Court ruling Thursday that foreign terrorism suspects held at Guantanamo Bay may challenge their detention in U.S. civilian courts. This is an important day for those who worried that extra-legal means were being used to keep these detainees at Gitmo, and is a setback for the Bush administration.

In its third rebuke of the Bush administration's treatment of prisoners, the court ruled 5-4 that the government is violating the constitutional rights of prisoners being held indefinitely and without charges at the U.S. naval base in Cuba. The court's liberal justices were in the majority.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the court, said, "The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times."

Kennedy said federal judges could ultimately order some detainees to be released, but that such orders would depend on security concerns and other circumstances.

link to full story

Justices Affirm Right To Bear Arms Is My 600th Post!!

I was just reading the story from the Supreme Court, which indicates that they will rule that "Americans have a right to own guns", as the Supreme Court justices declared Tuesday in a historic and lively debate that could lead to the most significant interpretation of the Second Amendment since its ratification two centuries ago.

Governments have a right to regulate those firearms, a majority of justices seemed to agree. But there was less apparent agreement on the case they were arguing: whether Washington's ban on handguns goes too far.

The justices dug deeply into arguments on one of the Constitution's most hotly debated provisions as demonstrators shouted slogans outside. Guns are an American right, argued one side. "Guns kill," responded the other.

Inside the court, at the end of a session extended long past the normal one hour, a majority of justices appeared ready to say that Americans have a "right to keep and bear arms" that goes beyond the amendment's reference to service in a militia.

Several justices were openly skeptical that the District of Columbia's 32-year-old handgun ban, perhaps the strictest in the nation, could survive under that reading of the Constitution. "What is reasonable about a total ban on possession?" Chief Justice John Roberts asked.

Walter Dellinger, representing the district, replied that Washington residents could own rifles and shotguns and could use them for protection at home. "What is reasonable about a total ban on possession is that it's a ban only on the possession of one kind of weapon, of handguns, that's considered especially dangerous," Dellinger said. Justice Stephen Breyer appeared reluctant to second-guess local officials. Is it "unreasonable for a city with a very high crime rate ... to say no handguns here?" Breyer asked. Alan Gura, representing a Washington resident who challenged ban, said, "It's unreasonable and it fails any standard of review."

The court has not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. The amendment reads: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." The basic issue for the justices is whether the amendment protects an individual's right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia.

A key justice, Anthony Kennedy, seemed to settle that question early on when he said the Second Amendment gives "a general right to bear arms." He is likely to be joined by Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas — a majority of the nine-member court.

Gun rights proponents were encouraged.

"What I heard from the court was the view that the D.C. law, which prohibits good people from having a firearm ... to defend themselves against bad people is not reasonable and unconstitutional," National Rifle Association executive vice president Wayne LaPierre said after leaving the court.

Washington Mayor Adrian Fenty said he hoped the court would leave the ban in place and not vote for a compromise that would, for example, allow handguns in homes but not in public places. "More guns anywhere in the District of Columbia is going to lead to more crime. And that is why we stand so steadfastly against any repeal of our handgun ban," the mayor said after attending the arguments. A decision that defines the amendment's meaning would be significant by itself. But the court also has to decide whether Washington's ban can stand and how to evaluate other gun control laws. The justices have many options, including upholding a federal appeals court ruling that struck down the ban.

Solicitor General Paul Clement, the Bush administration's top Supreme Court lawyer, supported the individual right but urged the justices not to decide the other question. Instead, Clement said the court should say that governments may impose reasonable restrictions, including federal laws that ban certain types of weapons. Clement wants the justices to order the appeals court to re-evaluate the Washington law. He did not take a position on it.

This issue has caused division within the administration, with Vice President Dick Cheney taking a harder line than the official position at the court.

In addition to the handgun ban, Washington also has a trigger lock requirement for other guns that raised some concerns Tuesday. "When you hear somebody crawling in your bedroom window, you can run to your gun, unlock it, load it and then fire?" Justice Antonin Scalia said. Roberts, who has two young children, suggested at one point that trigger locks might be reasonable. "There is always a risk that the children will get up and grab the firearm and use it for some purpose other than what the Second Amendment was designed to protect," he said. On the other hand, he, too, wondered about the practical effect of removing a lock in an emergency. "So then you turn on the lamp, you pick up your reading glasses," Roberts said to laughter. Dellinger said he opened the lock in three seconds, although he conceded that was in daylight. While the arguments raged inside, dozens of protesters mingled with tourists and waved signs saying "Ban the Washington elitists, not our guns" or "The NRA helps criminals and terrorists buy guns."

Members of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence chanted "guns kill" as followers of the Second Amendment Sisters and Maryland Shall Issue.Org shouted "more guns, less crime." The City Council that adopted the ban said it was justified because "handguns have no legitimate use in the purely urban environment of the District of Columbia." Dick Anthony Heller, 65, an armed security guard, sued the district after it rejected his application to keep a handgun at his home for protection in the same Capitol Hill neighborhood as the court. The last Supreme Court ruling on the topic came in 1939 in U.S. v. Miller, which involved a sawed-off shotgun. Constitutional scholars disagree over what that case means but agree it did not squarely answer the question of individual versus collective rights. Roberts said at his confirmation hearing that the correct reading of the Second Amendment was "still very much an open issue."


We shall update this story after the entire ruling is made!! Have A Nice Evening!!