June 27, 2008

Guns & Ammo: The Right to Bear Arms

U.S. Supreme Court: District of Columbia v. Heller

Here’s what the Second Amendment says: “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 debate between advocates of gun control and defenders of the right to bear arms has focused on whether, as gun controllers read it, the Second Amendment guarantees that right to a “well regulated Militia” (whatever that is), or as gun owners see it, to individuals, since “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”

In another 5 - 4 decision, the Supreme Court took dead aim at the question and put the issue to rest. Kind of. It said the DC law which prohibited the registration of hand guns (to deter their purchase), required individuals to keep lawfully owned guns unloaded and disassembled or rendered inoperative by a trigger lock even in the home (making them worthless as tools of self defense), violated the Second Amendment. Such a restrictive law is really a prohibition of handguns, and the court shot it down.

The court went on to emphatically state that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, but still recognized that the right is not unlimited, and that reasonable restrictions and regulations (such as carry permits, prohibitions on gun ownership by felons or the mentally ill) have been (and can be) upheld under the Second Amendment.

The debate about our individual right to bear arms is over and the Supreme Court has given gun ownership advocates new ammunition to strike down unlawful restrictions on handguns. It remains to be seen if legislators have the creativity to enact laws (see U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit: City of New York v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp.) which keep guns out of the hands of criminals without infringing the guaranteed right of law-abiding citizens to own one.

June 24, 2008

Jihad: Terrorists, Terror Rights & Terror Wrongs

U.S. Supreme Court: Boumediene v. George W. Bush, President of the United States

Habeas Corpus is Latin for “you have the body.” Prisoners in America who think they are being held unjustly can seek to get out of jail by filing a Writ of Habeas Corpus. The Writ compels the authorities detaining the prisoner to show that he or she is being held legally. This is the life blood of our judicial process: just cause and due process. Absent such a showing, the person must be released. The Writ of Habeas Corpus has been a cornerstone of American justice, ensuring that no authorities are above the law or can freely abuse their significant power to imprison individuals. Historically, this right has been accorded all citizens and residents of the United States.

In Boumediene v. George W. Bush (decided June 12, 2008), the US Supreme Court took up the war on terrorism, specifically the issue of enemy combatants held at Guantanamo and whether they have the same right to Habeas Corpus as other Americans. In a 5 – 4 decision, the court ruled that enemy combatants, some of whom have been held captive for over six years, have such a right. The majority concluded that even enemy combatants cannot be held indefinitely in what may be a very long war on terrorism. In a blistering dissent, however, Chief Justice Roberts concluded that the majority was inserting itself into political questions traditionally left to elected officials to resolve, into the execution of American foreign policy, the responsibility for which has always been the province of the executive branch (the president) and was creating procedural rights for our enemies that could put our troops and national security in danger by granting detainees a possible right to demand evidence about the war effort.

These are unique times we live in: Either we are committing political suicide by granting powerful procedural rights to prisoners of war who were enemy combatants committed to the destruction of our way of life before their incarceration, or we are putting our lofty principals to action and trusting that the possible release of an Al Qaeda member or Jihadist is worth the price of extending civil procedural protections to all individuals detained by American authorities, even in time of war. It seems like the Supreme Court is just as divided as the rest of us on how to deal with terrorism in a free and democratic society.

Only the future will tell whether the collective wisdom of the majority decision has strengthened our country and the principals which have made it great, or whether its ruling is out of touch with the harsh realities of these times and has given those committed to our destruction another weapon to use against us. Stay tuned.


June 21, 2008

Voter Fraud: Picture This

U.S. Supreme Court: Crawford v. Marion County Election Board

The Supreme Court of the United States upheld Indiana’s Voter ID law which requires voters to present a current government-issued photo identification before they vote. The stated purpose of the law is to protect the integrity of the election process. The court thought this was a reasonable approach to the problem of potential voter fraud and presented a minimum burden to voters, given the use of photo IDs in other areas of our lives. About 20 other states have similar laws on the books. So far, New York does not. Are we next?