Victory: Heller Gets His Gun Permit
The man whose lawsuit overturned Washington’s handgun ban has successfully registered his handgun, ending a more than 30-year wait to keep the weapon in his home. Dick Heller walked triumphantly out of a D.C. police station today with his permit in hand.
It’s a shame that Heller had to go all the way to the Supreme Court merely to excercise his right as an American, but thank God he did. Thanks to Dick Heller the SCOTUS has said once and for all that Americans have the consitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms.
(Hat tip to Michelle)
Supreme Court: Ban On Handguns “Incompatible” With Second Amendment
The Supreme Court struck down Washington D.C.’s ban on handguns as unconstitutional. Justice Scalia wrote the majority opinion saying in part that an outright ban on handguns is incompatible with the second amendement.
Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said that an individual right to bear arms is supported by “the historical narrative” both before and after the Second Amendment was adopted.
The Constitution does not permit “the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home,” Scalia said. The court also struck down Washington’s requirement that firearms be equipped with trigger locks or kept disassembled, but left intact the licensing of guns.
Scalia noted that the handgun is Americans’ preferred weapon of self-defense in part because “it can be pointed at a burglar with one hand while the other hand dials the police.”
This was absolutely the right decision. There are few rights as fundamental to being an American as our right to keep and bear arms.
Unless you are a felon or mentally disabled in some way, the State can no longer prevent the ownership of handguns. Washington D.C. has had the strictest gun laws in the country with an outright ban on handgun ownership. Ironically, Washington D.C. is also home to the worst gun violence in America.
No state official yet has explained how the only place in America with an outright handgun ban has some of the worst handgun violence. The idea that no one will have a gun because it’s against the law is comical.
Criminals will continue to own firearms with or without gun laws, the only question is whether or not law abiding citizens will be able to protect themselves from gun toting criminals.
The Supreme Court has rightly concluded that Americans have a right under the Constitution to do just that.
-Chris Jones
Photos: Supreme Court Before And After Gitmo Ruling
BEFORE THE GITMO RULING…
AFTER THE GITMO RULING…
(Photo via Stuck on Stupid)
Ann Coulter Skewers Justice Kennedy In New Column
Read Ann Coulter’s new column. She gives her take on the recent Supreme Court decision to treat captured terrorists like your average criminal. She appropriately skewers Justice Kennedy for his ridiculous majority opinion.
John Yoo Says Gitmo Ruling Damages National Security
The former Justice Department lawyer that everyone on the left affectionately refers to as a “war criminal,” and the man responsible for the now infamous “Yoo Memo” giving the legal rational to the President for coarcisive interrogations, Gitmo, etc. is speaking out about the recent Supreme Court decision on Gitmo.
In an Op-Ed in today’s Wall Street Journal, Yoo says the Supreme Court overstepped itself by giving Gitmo detainees the right to challenge their detention in civilian courts. He calls the decision a “dangerous” one that damages our national security.
It’s very likely that John Yoo’s legal opinions to the President are a major reason we haven’t been attacked since 9/11. His interpretation of the law (which happens to be correct) gave the President the authority he needed to aggressively wage war on our enemies.
(thanks to Michelle for the link)
California Supreme Court Overturns Gay Marriage Ban
In a landmark ruling today, California’s Supreme Court ruled that a ban on gay marriage was ‘unlawful’ and effectively cleared the way for gay couples to marry freely in the state of California.
In an opinion that analysts say could have nationwide implications for the issue, the seven-member panel voted 4-3 in favor of plaintiffs who argued that restricting marriage to men and women was discriminatory.
“… limiting the designation of marriage to a union ‘between a man and a woman’ is unconstitutional and must be stricken from the statute,” California Chief Justice Ron George said in the written opinion.
This is certain to create howls of protest from Conservatives, but I think this ruling is a good thing. There is still a very palpable sense of homophobia in America and we need to get over it.
Homosexuals have always been and will continue to be a part of our society, and we should treat them equally. I’m not necessarily in favor of a nationwide ruling on it, but I think states should have the right to decide if they want to allow it.
However, even if we do eventually legalize it across the board that’s also fine. Our country is facing some very serious challenges right now, and it’s just silly to worry about gay people getting married.
-Chris Jones
Supreme Court Backs States Right To Demand Photo ID For Voting
The Supreme Court ruled today that states can require citizens to show a photo ID to vote. Twenty-five states require some form of ID, and the court’s 6-3 decision rejecting a challenge to Indiana’s strict voter ID law could encourage others to adopt their own measures.
It seems like a no-brainer that people should have to prove who they are before voting, but Democrats of course are adamantly opposed to this.
According to liberals, having to prove who you are will “disenfranchise” poor and elderly voters. That’s total nonsense, and merely a cover for their real grievance.
If people have to prove who they are, it’s going to make it harder for illegal immigrants to vote fraudulently for Democrats. That’s the reason liberals are in a huff about photo ID, because it’s going to cut into the illegal voting block they were counting on in the upcoming election.
Scalia On Bush v. Gore: Get Over It!
From CBS:
People who believe the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision giving the 2000 presidential election to George W. Bush was politically motivated should just get over it, says Justice Antonin Scalia.
Scalia denies that the controversial decision was political and discusses other aspects of his public and private life in a remarkably candid interview with 60 Minutes correspondent Lesley Stahl, this Sunday, April 27, at 7 p.m. ET/PT.
“I say nonsense,” Scalia responds to Stahl’s observation that people say the Supreme Court’s decision in Gore v. Bush was based on politics and not justice. “Get over it. It’s so old by now. The principal issue in the case, whether the scheme that the Florida Supreme Court had put together violated the federal Constitution, that wasn’t even close. The vote was seven to two,” he says, referring to the Supreme Court’s decision that the Supreme Court of Florida’s method for recounting ballots was unconstitutional.
Furthermore, says the outspoken conservative justice, it was Al Gore who ultimately put the issue into the courts. “It was Al Gore who made it a judicial question…. We didn’t go looking for trouble. It was he who said, ‘I want this to be decided by the courts,’” says Scalia. “What are we supposed to say — ‘Not important enough?’” he jokes.
Call him conservative, just don’t call him biased on issues before the Supreme Court, including abortion, he says. “I am a law-and-order guy. I mean, I confess to being a social conservative, but it does not affect my views on cases,” he tells Stahl. “On the abortion thing, for example, if indeed I were…trying to impose my own views, I would not only be opposed to Roe versus Wade, I would be in favor of the opposite view, which the anti-abortion people would like to see adopted, which is to interpret the Constitution to mean that a state must prohibit abortion.” “And you’re against that?” asks Stahl. “Of course. There’s nothing [in the Constitution to support that view].”
Kudos to Justice Scalia for speaking the truth about Bush V. Gore. The far-left still just can’t quit saying Bush “stole the election” even after all this time. That argument didn’t hold up in 2000, and it doesn’t fair any better in 2008.
Supreme Court Skeptical Of Lethal Injection Challenge
The Supreme Court gave a skeptical hearing today to lawyers challenging the use of lethal injections to carry out executions in the United States.
The lawyers argued to the court that the three-chemical compound used in the injection causes inmates to die a painful death.
If these three drugs are “properly administered,” the inmate should die peacefully, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. told a lawyer for a Kentucky death-row inmate.
More than 30 years ago, death-penalty states moved away from using electrocutions or the gas chamber to execute inmates and instead adopted lethal injections. At that time, and with little public debate, they decided to use a three-drug concoction. It includes an anesthetic, a paralyzing agent and a heart-stopping drug.
However, this formula has been cast into doubt in recent years. In the Kentucky case, defense lawyers argued that veterinarians do better with the use of a single, powerful barbiturate to put horses to death.
“The risk here is real,” that the drugs will not be administered correctly, argued Attorney Donald Verrilli Jr.
If the inmate is not given enough anesthetic and is then given a paralyzing drug, he may be fully awake on the execution table, yet unable to react when he is given a heart-stopping drug that causes searing pain, he said.
Justice Antonin Scalia said the defense lawyers are simply trying to stop executions. If the court agrees there are problems with Kentucky’s method, “this never ends,” Scalia said.
The Justices also said they didn’t think there was a better alternative to lethal injection.
I think a better solution than all of the methods for execution in the U.S. is to bring back hanging. The way Saddam was executed costs almost nothing, while a lethal injection costs the state thousands of dollars.
If a “Standard Drop Hanging” is done correctly it will cause the persons neck to break and they will die instantly. This was the method used on Saddam, and most of the Nazis convicted at Nuremberg.
-Chris Jones
Supreme Court Looks At Death Penalty For Child Rape
The Supreme Court agreed Friday to decide whether a state can execute someone convicted of raping a child, one of the few remaining crimes that does not require the death of the victim to result in capital punishment.
Patrick Kennedy, 43, was sentenced to death for the rape of his 8- year-old stepdaughter in Louisiana.
He is the only person on death row in the United States for a rape that was not also accompanied by a killing.
The Supreme Court banned executions for rape in 1977 in a case in which the victim was an adult woman.
Kennedy’s lawyers say the death penalty for child rape violates the Eighth Amendment protection against cruel and unusual punishment.
It’s ridiculous not to apply the death penalty to child rapists. They may not have physically killed a child, but emotionally and psychologically they have.
Child rapists are usually impossible to rehabilitate and almost always re-offend if they are released.
Every week in this country we hear about some pedophile who gets paroled and then rapes another child. Unfortunately, the child usually ends up dying a horrifying death sooner or later.
For a prison system that is dangerously overcrowded already, we simply don’t have the space to warehouse every predator.
We can’t let them out and we don’t have the room or money to house them, so the death penalty makes for a great alternative. An alternative that they indeed deserve many times over.
Any person who would rape their 8-year old daughter simply does not deserve to live. There is no room in this world for people who commit such heinous acts.
-Chris Jones
Posts
