The Supreme Court Rules

[packinpatland]

Personally, I feel that anyone who rapes a child is better served, serving a life sentence rather being put to death. Having said that tho, this rational doesn't work for me........

"Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion that "evolving standards of decency" in the United States forbid capital punishment for any crime other than murder.

"We conclude that, in determining whether the death penalty is excessive, there is a distinction between intentional first-degree murder on the one hand and nonhomicide crimes against individual persons, even including child rape, on the other," wrote Anthony Kennedy, who is of no relation to the convicted rapist.

Execution of Patrick Kennedy, the justice also wrote, would be unconstitutional on the grounds of the Eighth Amendment, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. "




http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/06/25/scotus.child.rape/index.html

[Freak Out]

I also heard a comment that if it was punishable by death the rapist would be forced to murder his victim to hide his identity. Were a sick species.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Personally, I'm with Anthony Kennedy on this one. It's really tough to be against capital punishment at times though. I'm sure I'm in the minority.

[Deputy Nutz]

Personally, I'm with Anthony Kennedy on this one. It's really tough to be against capital punishment at times though. I'm sure I'm in the minority.

The problem with capital punishment is that we don't do it with enough brutality. We would have to do it far less if we ripped these bastards apart piece by piece.

Instead of killing child rapist maybe we just castrate them instead?

[BallHawk]

If we only we kicked it old school like this dude....

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/images/hammurabi.jpg

Hammurabi had it down.

[Freak Out]

Personally, I'm with Anthony Kennedy on this one. It's really tough to be against capital punishment at times though. I'm sure I'm in the minority.

The problem with capital punishment is that we don't do it with enough brutality. We would have to do it far less if we ripped these bastards apart piece by piece.

Instead of killing child rapist maybe we just castrate them instead?

I thought this was done in some cases?

[the_idle_threat]

Life in prison is a sentence to die in prison. Might as well do it sooner rather than later. The eighth amendment argument is troubling for those of us who believe there is a place for capital punishment, because why is it less "cruel and unusual" to use it on a murderer than on a child rapist? Capital punishment, generally, is not cruel and unusual in the mind of the drafters of the bill of rights, because it was practiced then. We can keep expanding the definition of this phrase until it is meaningless. Warehousing people for decades until they die is pretty cruel and unusual when you think about it. So maybe we should slap them on the hand and let them go free.

And I don't buy the idea that capital punishment would increase the murder of child victims. Even without the possibility capital punishment, a child rapist is gonna get put away for a long time, and the time they do is extra harsh because of how child rapists are viewed by other prisoners. If they had it in them to kill the child, they would probably do so to avoid getting caught. I don't think the level of punishment has much to do with it.

[Deputy Nutz]

Personally, I'm with Anthony Kennedy on this one. It's really tough to be against capital punishment at times though. I'm sure I'm in the minority.

The problem with capital punishment is that we don't do it with enough brutality. We would have to do it far less if we ripped these bastards apart piece by piece.

Instead of killing child rapist maybe we just castrate them instead?

I thought this was done in some cases?

Chemical castration, which wasn't worked in some cases.

[Zool]

I dont think serving a sentence where you will never be out of prison makes any sense at all. Its a strain on everything. Prisons are over populated, money is tight and there aren't enough guards as it is. Plus inmates file frivolous lawsuits all the time. Jail time is just not a strong enough deterrent obviously.

[Gunakor]

It doesn't make any sense from the taxpayer's perspective to house a criminal for life either. How is it fair to the taxpayer to fund the housing and nourishment of a criminal who will never ever become a productive member of society? Then there's the salaries of the guards who have to keep an eye on them... I'd imagine decades of imprisonment comes at an extremely high cost. If the crime committed were so horrendous that life without the possibility of release is the only just sentence, they really don't deserve to live on the taxes paid by good, descent, law abiding citizens.

[Harlan Huckleby]

my problem with capital punishment is I don't trust the justice system to figure out who done it. And it's a lot easier to convict a poor person.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Jail time is just not a strong enough deterrent obviously.

The death penalty is not a deterent at all.

[Zool]

Maybe not, but repeat offenders would be cut drastically.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Warehousing people for decades until they die is pretty cruel and unusual when you think about it. So maybe we should slap them on the hand and let them go free.

I agree that a life in prison is not much different from a death penalty. Not sure where the "slap on the hand" argument comes from. Are you saying anybody who is against the death penalty must be a panty waist sissy?

[the_idle_threat]

Warehousing people for decades until they die is pretty cruel and unusual when you think about it. So maybe we should slap them on the hand and let them go free.

I agree that a life in prison is not much different from a death penalty. Not sure where the "slap on the hand" argument comes from. Are you saying anybody who is against the death penalty must be a panty waist sissy?

No, and sorry if I touched upon a sore spot or something. :P

It's reductio ad absurdum. If we keep moving the bar of what qualifies as "cruel and unusual," then we will rule out more and more punishments until a slap on the hand is all that's left. And it had better not be a hard slap, because that would be cruel.

[texaspackerbacker]

Personally, I'm with Anthony Kennedy on this one. It's really tough to be against capital punishment at times though. I'm sure I'm in the minority.

The problem with capital punishment is that we don't do it with enough brutality. We would have to do it far less if we ripped these bastards apart piece by piece.

Instead of killing child rapist maybe we just castrate them instead?

A degree of sarcastic truth there.

It is pretty hard even for an avowed capital punisher like me to argue that Justice Kennedy is wrong in saying death is way too excessive for the crime of rape, even of a child.

There was a case in the news today of a home invasion in Pasadena, Texas--a husband and wife and their child murdered in their own home. If they want to have mandatory capital punishment for a particular crime, THAT type of thing ought to be at the top of the list.

[Harlan Huckleby]

It's reductio ad absurdum. If we keep moving the bar of what qualifies as "cruel and unusual," then we will rule out more and more punishments until a slap on the hand is all that's left. And it had better not be a hard slap, because that would be cruel.

I don't think "cruel" is a good argument. And fuck the constitution, lets talk about what's fair and decent.

What about when Nutz is allowed to have his way & chops the perp up into little pieces, and then we find out that, whups, the guy didn't do it? Our justice system is not so swift.

Most of the world has abolished the death penalty. The countries who keep it tend to be thuggish. Its bad pr to have the Beacon of Light to the world rubbing people out.

[Freak Out]

I like to think that we've grown as a society (I know....fantasy) and as HH stated gotten beyond the thuggish behavior that has passed as justice.....and then I read about something like this and my answer is one single bullet.

Prosecutor Details Rape That Lasted 19 Hours
By JOHN ELIGON

The time crept by so slowly and painfully that the 23-year-old Columbia University journalism student had decided it was time to end her life.

Over many torturous hours, she had been repeatedly raped, sodomized and forced to perform oral sex, a prosecutor told a jury on Thursday. The accused, Robert A. Williams, 31, had doused the woman’s face and body with boiling water and bleach, forced her to swallow handfuls of pills and to chase them with beer, sealed her mouth with glue, and bound her wrists and legs with shoelaces, cords and duct tape, said the prosecutor, Ann P. Prunty. And now, Ms. Prunty said, he was asking the woman to gouge out her own eyes with a pair of scissors.

And so the woman, sitting on the floor of her studio apartment in Hamilton Heights and holding a pair of scissors between her knees — the blade pointing toward her face — tried to stop the suffering. She lowered her face to the blade, but turned her head at the last moment, trying to stab herself in the neck instead of her eyes.

The scissors slipped from her grasp, the suicide attempt failed, and the woman suffered several more hours of torture, Ms. Prunty said.

The woman survived the nearly 19-hour ordeal, which ended, Ms. Prunty said, when she used a fire started by Mr. Williams to burn the cords that secured her wrists to a futon.

Mr. Williams went on trial Thursday in State Supreme Court in Manhattan, where he faces 71 criminal counts, including attempted murder, rape, arson and assault. If convicted, he could spend the rest of his life in prison.

Mr. Williams, who was homeless at the time of his arrest about a week later at the scene of a burglary in Queens, has a lengthy police record dating to his childhood, the authorities have said.

He was charged in a murder as a juvenile, though the outcome of that case is sealed, a law enforcement official said, and he spent eight years in prison for an attempted-murder conviction in 1996.

The prosecution began presenting its case with Ms. Prunty’s vivid, step-by-step account of the attack, which she said began about 10 p.m. on April 13, 2007, and lasted until 4 p.m. the following afternoon. Mr. Williams’s lawyer, Arnold J. Levine, did not make an opening statement. Outside the courtroom, Mr. Levine declined to talk about his strategy. In hearings before the trial, he seemed to indicate that he would challenge witnesses’ identification of his client.

The victim and several witnesses in the six-story apartment building where the woman lived picked out Mr. Williams from lineups, Ms. Prunty said. She said that DNA evidence also linked him to the crime.

Justice Carol Berkman, who is presiding over the trial, found in October that Mr. Williams was mentally fit for trial. After that decision, Mr. Levine said he was considering a mental illness defense.

As Ms. Prunty delivered her opening statement, Mr. Williams sat slouched in his chair, with his head tilted downward.

On the night of the attack, the victim, a month from graduating with a master’s degree, was at Columbia, putting the final touches on her résumé for a job fair the next day, Ms. Prunty said. When she arrived at her apartment building, she got on the elevator and found Mr. Williams inside, Ms. Prunty said. She rode with him to her floor, and could hear him follow her as she navigated the long L-shaped hallway to her apartment.

As the woman entered her apartment, Ms. Prunty said, Mr. Williams asked her if she knew where a Mrs. Evans lived. The woman stopped to answer.

“Her kind moment of hesitation would cost her,” Ms. Prunty said.

Mr. Williams forced his way into the apartment, Ms. Prunty said, put the woman in a chokehold, and slapped her cellphone from her hand. Mr. Williams slammed the door behind him, and “her Friday the 13th nightmare began,” Ms. Prunty said.

Mr. Williams turned a clock by the woman’s bed to the wall and made her take off her watch so she would not know what time it was, Ms. Prunty said. He raped her repeatedly and cut her hair because “he wanted to see her face, her fear and humiliation.”

He made her sit in her bathtub, and that was the first time he told her to gouge her eyes, Ms. Prunty said. He punished her for refusing by boiling water in a kettle and throwing it on her, the prosecutor said. The water jolted her so much that she broke through the bonds on her wrist, Ms. Prunty said, as the skin on her chest, torso and thighs blistered. (On hearing this detail, one of the jurors shook his head and covered his mouth.)

“Just kill me! Just kill me!” the woman pleaded, Ms. Prunty said.

Later, after her failed attempt to kill herself with the scissors, Mr. Williams threw a heavy object at the back of her head, cracking her skull, Ms. Prunty said.

Mr. Williams was intent on damaging her vision because, Ms. Prunty said, “a blind witness could never identify her attacker.”

Mr. Williams eventually slit the woman’s eyelids and face with a butcher knife, Ms. Prunty said, but she did not lose her vision. He fastened her legs and arms to a futon, and she lost consciousness.

When she awoke, she again pleaded for him to kill her, but heard no response. He was gone.

Mr. Williams “only stopped when he could no longer feel the scourge of control over another human being,” Ms. Prunty said.

The woman smelled smoke, Ms. Prunty said, so she wriggled her legs free and pulled the futon away from the wall. She used the fire to free her arms, Ms. Prunty said, and then ran through the smoke to her door. It took her several attempts to open it because her hands were limp and numb, Ms. Prunty said.

The woman ran through her hallway seeking help, Ms. Prunty said, “an image of the walking, living dead.”

Found guilty by the way.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/25/nyregion/25rape.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=Brutal+rape&st=nyt&oref=slogin

[BallHawk]

That's sickening. That man deserves to die and anybody that can argue anything else is beyond me.

[Zool]

Ahhh rehabilitation. Its working out fucking peachy. Just ask that girl. I'm sure her lips have healed after being glued together.

Seriously how can anyone say putting this guy out of his misery is anything but the right answer? Eliminating repeat offenders would go a long ways.

[MadtownPacker]

Stupid fucking idiots like Harlan that have never been on the receiving end of bad shit should just shut the hell up when it comes to this subject.

The story Freak posted says it all, that girl's life is fucked up. Yeah she didnt die but you think she will be right in the head after all that shit?

Kill the SOB but throw hot water on him and cut him until he begs for death first.

[GBRulz]

That story is absolutely sick. God, that poor girl.

He was charged in a murder as a juvenile, though the outcome of that case is sealed, a law enforcement official said, and he spent eight years in prison for an attempted-murder conviction in 1996

Now that is what pisses me off. 8 years in prison for attempted murder...even though he's already killed before.

[The Leaper]

I can see both sides of the argument.

I can also see that the percentage of "rehabilitated" sex offenders is pretty low. Once a sexual/power deviant, almost always a sexual/power deviant.

If we can't kill them, then we need to have stricter laws to keep these freaks locked up for good. We also need to rise up as a populace against limp dick judges who allow convicted sex offenders and murderers to get out of jail easy after serving only a few years behind bars.

[Deputy Nutz]

Where is Bulldog, his signature has something about limp dicked judges.

[bobblehead]

I heard that story before, that is one sick fuck. I hope he gets put in with bubba and gets violently raped for the rest of his life. THAT would be justice.

I have given up on the death penalty simply because the strategy of wearing me down has worked. Lawyers who are anti capital punishment are bringing appeal after appeal in every case out there all probono just to stop the death penalty. My attitude is "ok, you win, life in prison is fine". It is just getting too fucking expensive and too much of a hassle to put a dog down.

[Freak Out]

I heard that story before, that is one sick fuck. I hope he gets put in with bubba and gets violently raped for the rest of his life. THAT would be justice.

I have given up on the death penalty simply because the strategy of wearing me down has worked. Lawyers who are anti capital punishment are bringing appeal after appeal in every case out there all probono just to stop the death penalty. My attitude is "ok, you win, life in prison is fine". It is just getting too fucking expensive and too much of a hassle to put a dog down.

The appeal process is important because some times we get it wrong and an innocent person gets put to death in our names.

[the_idle_threat]

I understand the concern about convicting and executing an innocent person, but with modern crime solving methods, a judicial system that increasingly defers to the rights of the accused in court, and an appeals system, I'm confident that it's plenty accurate. Exonerations are very rare, statisically. They just get a lot of press when they happen.

[Scott Campbell]

I don't believe in letting everyone go free out of fear that we might get one wrong once in a while. Our justice system isn't perfect, but it's the best we've got.

[Freak Out]

I don't believe in letting everyone go free out of fear that we might get one wrong once in a while. Our justice system isn't perfect, but it's the best we've got.

Who said anything about letting everyone go free? Let the system work....it can take a long time but the appeals process has to be there.

[the_idle_threat]

In other news, the Supreme Court has interpreted the Second Amendment to guarantee individual citizens the right to keep and bear firearms (handguns, specifically, according to the facts of the case) for self-defense. It took me the entire afternoon to read the 157-page decision (including dissents).

The ruling is very broad, and it calls for further litigation to hammer out the contours of the law. Some interesting arguments were made on both sides. I agree with the conclusion, and most, but not all, of the majority's reasoning. I think the dissents made some good points as well, and I might have structured the majority argument a bit differently.

It will be interesting to see what follows. The NRA plans to use the decision to challenge the municipal handgun bans in San Francisco, Chicago and some of the Chicago suburbs, among other places.

Funny thing is: I was planning to go to the gun store this afternoon and buy a couple guns, but I spent all afternoon reading this case so I don't have the time. It will have to wait. :D

[Freak Out]

In other news, the Supreme Court has interpreted the Second Amendment to guarantee individual citizens the right to keep and bear firearms (handguns, specifically, according to the facts of the case) for self-defense. It took me the entire afternoon to read the 157-page decision (including dissents).

The ruling is very broad, and it calls for further litigation to hammer out the contours of the law. Some interesting arguments were made on both sides. I agree with the conclusion, and most, but not all, of the majority's reasoning. I think the dissents made some good points as well, and I might have structured the majority argument a bit differently.

It will be interesting to see what follows. The NRA plans to use the decision to challenge the municipal handgun bans in San Francisco, Chicago and some of the Chicago suburbs, among other places.

Funny thing is: I was planning to go to the gun store this afternoon and buy a couple guns, but I spent all afternoon reading this case so I don't have the time. It will have to wait. :D

To me the second amendment is being able to keep and bear arms so we can defend the country from foreign invasion and to overthrow the government when some divine right (King George) nutters take power.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

This is an honest question...no politics involved.

Idle mentions municipal gun bans in cities and the NRA challenging.

What my question revolves around is of course the right to bear arms...but, in the old west, it was pretty standard to surrender your arms once you entered a city...not saying san fran..but, you know, the more rugged cities.

How/when did this change, why isn't this used as an example of when we surrended arms (maybe it is..i'm not familiar),etc.

Someone please illuminate me.

[the_idle_threat]

In other news, the Supreme Court has interpreted the Second Amendment to guarantee individual citizens the right to keep and bear firearms (handguns, specifically, according to the facts of the case) for self-defense. It took me the entire afternoon to read the 157-page decision (including dissents).

The ruling is very broad, and it calls for further litigation to hammer out the contours of the law. Some interesting arguments were made on both sides. I agree with the conclusion, and most, but not all, of the majority's reasoning. I think the dissents made some good points as well, and I might have structured the majority argument a bit differently.

It will be interesting to see what follows. The NRA plans to use the decision to challenge the municipal handgun bans in San Francisco, Chicago and some of the Chicago suburbs, among other places.

Funny thing is: I was planning to go to the gun store this afternoon and buy a couple guns, but I spent all afternoon reading this case so I don't have the time. It will have to wait. :D

To me the second amendment is being able to keep and bear arms so we can defend the country from foreign invasion and to overthrow the government when some divine right (King George) nutters take power.

They really split some hairs in this opinion. The majority and dissents agreed that the second amendment (as imagined by the framers) ensured the individual right to possess weapons for use in a citizen militia. That's basically what you are saying.

They differed in that the majority held the right was not limited to that purpose, and was understood to encompass possessing firearms for other purposes such as self-defense and hunting. The minority believed that the framers intended the right solely for the purpose of militias.

[Freak Out]

In other news, the Supreme Court has interpreted the Second Amendment to guarantee individual citizens the right to keep and bear firearms (handguns, specifically, according to the facts of the case) for self-defense. It took me the entire afternoon to read the 157-page decision (including dissents).

The ruling is very broad, and it calls for further litigation to hammer out the contours of the law. Some interesting arguments were made on both sides. I agree with the conclusion, and most, but not all, of the majority's reasoning. I think the dissents made some good points as well, and I might have structured the majority argument a bit differently.

It will be interesting to see what follows. The NRA plans to use the decision to challenge the municipal handgun bans in San Francisco, Chicago and some of the Chicago suburbs, among other places.

Funny thing is: I was planning to go to the gun store this afternoon and buy a couple guns, but I spent all afternoon reading this case so I don't have the time. It will have to wait. :D

To me the second amendment is being able to keep and bear arms so we can defend the country from foreign invasion and to overthrow the government when some divine right (King George) nutters take power.

They really split some hairs in this opinion. The majority and dissents agreed that the second amendment (as imagined by the framers) ensured the individual right to possess weapons for use in a citizen militia. That's basically what you are saying.

They differed in that the majority held the right was not limited to that purpose, and was understood to encompass possessing firearms for other purposes such as self-defense and hunting. The minority believed that the framers intended the right solely for the purpose of militias.

Growing up in Alaska subsistence hunting and coming from a family with a very long tradition of national defense I classify myself as a big gun rights advocate. But I find it hard to oppose a city wants to ban handguns....if they have a good law enforcement plan and the people of that area voted it in. Not being familiar with the case I'm not sure it was voted on by the people or just the city council. Did the ban cover shotguns as well? :lol:

[the_idle_threat]

This is an honest question...no politics involved.

Idle mentions municipal gun bans in cities and the NRA challenging.

What my question revolves around is of course the right to bear arms...but, in the old west, it was pretty standard to surrender your arms once you entered a city...not saying san fran..but, you know, the more rugged cities.

How/when did this change, why isn't this used as an example of when we surrended arms (maybe it is..i'm not familiar),etc.

Someone please illuminate me.

It only changed today. Basically, the city rules you speak of (which I'm not familiar with, but I don't dispute at all) don't sound legally different from Washington D.C. or Chicago's modern municipal gun bans. Such bans were not considered unconstitutional until today.

Up until today, the 2nd amendment had never been definitively interpreted by the Supreme Court. It was an open question whether gun possession was an individual right to possess a firearm, even outside of a "well-regulated" militia, or whether gun possession was an individual right only if serving in a militia, or even whether there was no individual right at all and the Amendment only guaranteed the right of individual states to maintain militias. The U.S. v. Miller decision in 1939 was often touted as evidence that the Supreme Court interpreted the right solely for serving in militias, but this was not actually what the decision said, and there was debate on the issue. The majority decision today did not overrule Miller, but rather clarified what Miller held and distinguished it from the current case. Of course, the local rules you speak of were long before Miller anyway.

Today, now that individual possession of a firearm is a protected right under the Constitution, those forcible surrenders would probably not pass constitutional muster. But at the time, nobody knew exactly what the law was. And for that matter, the law was what the local lawmen said it was. If a traveler disagreed, good luck filing a lawsuit and getting enforcement in the lawless old West.

The local firearm surrender rules you mention were not cited to in the decision as examples of when a "right" can be surrendered, but similar other local rules were cited by the dissent---rules that existed at the time the Bill of Rights was written and would have been known to the framers. As there is a lot of litigation to come based upon this decision, I wouldn't be surprised if the Old West rules came up as examples of curtailing rights for the collective good (like the yelling "fire" in a crowded theater exception to free speech). Unless today's decision is overturned, many current and future gun control rules will need to be justified as exceptions in this way.

[Freak Out]

In other news, the Supreme Court has interpreted the Second Amendment to guarantee individual citizens the right to keep and bear firearms (handguns, specifically, according to the facts of the case) for self-defense. It took me the entire afternoon to read the 157-page decision (including dissents).

The ruling is very broad, and it calls for further litigation to hammer out the contours of the law. Some interesting arguments were made on both sides. I agree with the conclusion, and most, but not all, of the majority's reasoning. I think the dissents made some good points as well, and I might have structured the majority argument a bit differently.

It will be interesting to see what follows. The NRA plans to use the decision to challenge the municipal handgun bans in San Francisco, Chicago and some of the Chicago suburbs, among other places.

Funny thing is: I was planning to go to the gun store this afternoon and buy a couple guns, but I spent all afternoon reading this case so I don't have the time. It will have to wait. :D

To me the second amendment is being able to keep and bear arms so we can defend the country from foreign invasion and to overthrow the government when some divine right (King George) nutters take power.

They really split some hairs in this opinion. The majority and dissents agreed that the second amendment (as imagined by the framers) ensured the individual right to possess weapons for use in a citizen militia. That's basically what you are saying.

They differed in that the majority held the right was not limited to that purpose, and was understood to encompass possessing firearms for other purposes such as self-defense and hunting. The minority believed that the framers intended the right solely for the purpose of militias.

Growing up in Alaska subsistence hunting and coming from a family with a very long tradition of national defense I classify myself as a big gun rights advocate. But I find it hard to oppose a city wants to ban handguns....if they have a good law enforcement plan and the people of that area voted it in. Not being familiar with the case I'm not sure it was voted on by the people or just the city council. Did the ban cover shotguns as well? :lol:

I just read that the ban did state that shotguns had to be disassembled or have a trigger lock on.

[MJZiggy]

Now the mayor says that just because people can OWN them doesn't mean he has to let them leave the house with them...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/26/AR2008062601779.html?hpid=topnews

[the_idle_threat]

In other news, the Supreme Court has interpreted the Second Amendment to guarantee individual citizens the right to keep and bear firearms (handguns, specifically, according to the facts of the case) for self-defense. It took me the entire afternoon to read the 157-page decision (including dissents).

The ruling is very broad, and it calls for further litigation to hammer out the contours of the law. Some interesting arguments were made on both sides. I agree with the conclusion, and most, but not all, of the majority's reasoning. I think the dissents made some good points as well, and I might have structured the majority argument a bit differently.

It will be interesting to see what follows. The NRA plans to use the decision to challenge the municipal handgun bans in San Francisco, Chicago and some of the Chicago suburbs, among other places.

Funny thing is: I was planning to go to the gun store this afternoon and buy a couple guns, but I spent all afternoon reading this case so I don't have the time. It will have to wait. :D

To me the second amendment is being able to keep and bear arms so we can defend the country from foreign invasion and to overthrow the government when some divine right (King George) nutters take power.

They really split some hairs in this opinion. The majority and dissents agreed that the second amendment (as imagined by the framers) ensured the individual right to possess weapons for use in a citizen militia. That's basically what you are saying.

They differed in that the majority held the right was not limited to that purpose, and was understood to encompass possessing firearms for other purposes such as self-defense and hunting. The minority believed that the framers intended the right solely for the purpose of militias.

Growing up in Alaska subsistence hunting and coming from a family with a very long tradition of national defense I classify myself as a big gun rights advocate. But I find it hard to oppose a city wants to ban handguns....if they have a good law enforcement plan and the people of that area voted it in. Not being familiar with the case I'm not sure it was voted on by the people or just the city council. Did the ban cover shotguns as well? :lol:

I just read that the ban did state that shotguns had to be disassembled or have a trigger lock on.

As I understand it, they banned possession of a handgun without registration, and then banned registration of handguns except those that had already been registered prior to the ban, which was in 1976.

Long guns could be kept, but had to be registered, and had to be stored disassembled or with trigger locks, with a couple of specific exceptions. None of the exceptions would make it feasible to use them for defense.

I have a problem with handgun bans because they don't work, and while they make people less safe, they infringe upon peoples' rights to defend themselves.

It's funny how Justice Breyer, in his dissent, cited the data that showed how crime went up in the District immediately after the ban and stayed elevated, and then cited other data showing crime rising immediately after gun bans in E.U. countries, and then made a weak point about how correlation does not mean causation, and maybe crime was going up with or without the bans. (Even if this was true, then if the bans were supposed to be effective in any way, then why did the District remain a crime haven?) It may be true that correlation does not equal causation, but when you take chronology into account, and where there's a clear pattern, ignoring the data is willful blindness.

[the_idle_threat]

Now the mayor says that just because people can OWN them doesn't mean he has to let them leave the house with them...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/26/AR2008062601779.html?hpid=topnews

I'm sure they will pass laws against concealed and open carry. That would be expected.

Of course, they can't pass a law that you can never possess a handgun outside of the house, because that would violate today's ruling. As a practical matter, making it illegal under all circumstances to possess a handgun outside of the home would make it illegal to transport a gun purchased for the purpose of self defense in the home from the store to your home. That would undercut today's ruling and would be struck down. So they'll probably just make some pretty heavy duty rules about handguns having to be unloaded, trigger locked, in a case, and inaccessible to the driver of a vehicle when they're being transported. They probably have rules like that already for long guns.

[MJZiggy]

See, I don't understand that rule for long guns. It's not like you can hide one in your pants...If you have a long gun, everyone knows you have it so why worry about having it in a case and all that?

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Must...resist...joke....long gun...in pants..please...god...help me.

[MJZiggy]

Thank you for sparing us...15th!

[bobblehead]

I heard that story before, that is one sick fuck. I hope he gets put in with bubba and gets violently raped for the rest of his life. THAT would be justice.

I have given up on the death penalty simply because the strategy of wearing me down has worked. Lawyers who are anti capital punishment are bringing appeal after appeal in every case out there all probono just to stop the death penalty. My attitude is "ok, you win, life in prison is fine". It is just getting too fucking expensive and too much of a hassle to put a dog down.

The appeal process is important because some times we get it wrong and an innocent person gets put to death in our names.

I don't have a problem with the appeal process, my point was that anti death penalty lawyers make sure EVERY POSSIBLE appeal is utilized as a way to muck up the system. They aren't appealing for the client, they aren't appealing merits, they are simply pushing an agenda.

You don't see those same pro bono lawyers going to court to help out the dude sitting in prison on an iffy charge where an appeal would be worthy, no, only the ones that fit an agenda.

[GrnBay007]

I heard that story before, that is one sick fuck. I hope he gets put in with bubba and gets violently raped for the rest of his life. THAT would be justice.

I have given up on the death penalty simply because the strategy of wearing me down has worked. Lawyers who are anti capital punishment are bringing appeal after appeal in every case out there all probono just to stop the death penalty. My attitude is "ok, you win, life in prison is fine". It is just getting too fucking expensive and too much of a hassle to put a dog down.

The appeal process is important because some times we get it wrong and an innocent person gets put to death in our names.

I would think the appeal process should be able to be shortened now with all the advancement in DNA collecting/testing. It's too late to go digging for info but do all States now require DNA samples from convicted felons? Iowa does and I'm sure many, if not all do.

The story freak posted made me feel sick. A few months ago I went to a conference that hosted an FBI agent that strictly worked cases of serial killers. Some of that stuff went way beyond what you read or hear about...with pics included. It's hard to believe there are animals out there that can torture other human beings that way. I'm not exaggerating when I say it took over a week before I stopped thinking about that stuff many, many times a day.

[the_idle_threat]

See, I don't understand that rule for long guns. It's not like you can hide one in your pants...If you have a long gun, everyone knows you have it so why worry about having it in a case and all that?

Do you mean while transporting, or when storing long guns in the home?

[MJZiggy]

I mean while transporting.

[the_idle_threat]

I can't say I know the reasoning for certain, but I suspect it has something to due with law enforcement's concerns about a driver or passenger having access to a loaded weapon---long gun or not---during a traffic stop. That probably has something to do with it, anyway.

And with regard to carrying a long gun uncased when not in a vehicle, it's probably a similar concern to the one that causes bans on open carry of handguns: people get intimidated/upset when they se a person carrying a gun around uncased and possibly loaded. When it's in a case, it's not so threatening to people. Really doesn't make a huge difference in reality---a gun can be loaded in the case and very easily accessible---but it's all about perception.

[MJZiggy]

Ok, I can see that logic...

[mraynrand]

people get intimidated/upset when they se a person carrying a gun around uncased and possibly loaded.

QFT

http://www.t-lay.com/images/charles_bronson1.jpg
http://gamesnet.vo.llnwd.net/o1/gamestar/objects/181356_main.jpg

[Harlan Huckleby]

I don't have any strong opinion about guns or gun control. But the Supreme Court just overturned a gun control law that was wildly popular among the people and police of Washington DC. And the constitutional basis for doing so was debatable. At least the courts since the 1920's read the constitution differently.

I just point this out to all you conservatives who complain about the Supreme Court "legislating from the bench." Sheepshead, you were all mad about the CA court going against the will of the people regarding gay marriage. You pissed off about this one, too?

And the boldest move the Supreme Court has made in my lifetime was stopping a vote recount in Florida. The constitutional argument there was razor thin. I'm having trouble remembering the conservative outrage.

[Partial]

http://opencarry.org/

[BallHawk]

http://opencarry.org/

Sponsored by....

http://www.papa.org.uk/awards/images/papa_johns_logo.jpg

[HarveyWallbangers]

I just point this out to all you conservatives who complain about the Supreme Court "legislating from the bench."

Actually, I don't complain much about the US Supreme Court. It's the lower courts that mostly legislate from the bench, IMHO. I have no problem with the US Supreme Court ruling on ambiguous parts of the Constitution. I think oftentimes the lower courts overstep their bounds, and the US Supreme Court is there to remedy it. I think this is a case of the Supreme Court ruling on something, and either way it's going to look like "legislating from the bench."


And the boldest move the Supreme Court has made in my lifetime was stopping a vote recount in Florida. The constitutional argument there was razor thin. I'm having trouble remembering the conservative outrage.

I don't know if you want to go there.
:D

I think you can blame the Florida legislature more than anybody--for having such shitty laws dealing with a recount process.

[MJZiggy]

Or you could blame an electorate that was too feeble to follow the instructions on the ballot. It just wasn't that hard, people (though admittedly it did make a mess).

[3irty1]

Stories like the one Freak posted are not reasons for the death penalty. A guy like that is best dealt with outside of the law.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Or you could blame an electorate that was too feeble to follow the instructions on the ballot. It just wasn't that hard, people (though admittedly it did make a mess).

Or you could blame a the governor and republicans who hired a company to purge the voter rolls...and victimized voters who should have been able to vote.

[MJZiggy]

Or you could blame an electorate that was too feeble to follow the instructions on the ballot. It just wasn't that hard, people (though admittedly it did make a mess).

Or you could blame a the governor and republicans who hired a company to purge the voter rolls...and victimized voters who should have been able to vote.

Damn Bushs!

[bobblehead]

Or you could blame an electorate that was too feeble to follow the instructions on the ballot. It just wasn't that hard, people (though admittedly it did make a mess).

Personally I like letting the machine count them, period. Its not biased. Can it be rigged...I guess so, but I would think its much less likely than a partisan pollster messing with a paper ballot to change/invalidate a vote.

[Freak Out]

In Weighing Death Penalty, a Flaw in Fact
By LINDA GREENHOUSE

WASHINGTON — When the Supreme Court ruled last week that the death penalty for raping a child was unconstitutional, the majority noted that a child rapist could face the ultimate penalty in only six states — not in any of the 30 other states that have the death penalty, and not under the jurisdiction of the federal government either.

This inventory of jurisdictions was a central part of the court’s analysis, the foundation for Justice Anthony M. Kennedy’s conclusion in his majority opinion that capital punishment for child rape was contrary to the “evolving standards of decency” by which the court judges how the death penalty is applied.

It turns out that Justice Kennedy’s confident assertion about the absence of federal law was wrong.

A military law blog pointed out over the weekend that Congress, in fact, revised the sex crimes section of the Uniform Code of Military Justice in 2006 to add child rape to the military death penalty. The revisions were in the National Defense Authorization Act that year. President Bush signed that bill into law and then, last September, carried the changes forward by issuing Executive Order 13447, which put the provisions into the 2008 edition of the Manual for Courts-Martial.

Anyone in the federal government — or anywhere else, for that matter — who knew about these developments did not tell the court. Not one of the 10 briefs filed in the case, Kennedy v. Louisiana, mentioned it. The Office of the Solicitor General, which represents the federal government in the Supreme Court, did not even file a brief, evidently having concluded that the federal government had no stake in whether Louisiana’s death penalty for child rape was constitutional.

The provision was the subject of a post over the weekend on the blog run by Dwight Sullivan, a colonel in the Marine Corps Reserve who now works for the Air Force as a civilian defense lawyer handling death penalty appeals.

Mr. Sullivan was reading the Supreme Court’s decision on a plane and was surprised to see no mention of the military statute. “We’re not talking about ancient history,” he said in an interview. “This happened in 2006.”

His titled his blog post “The Supremes Dis the Military Justice System.”

Jeffrey L. Fisher, a Stanford Law School professor who successfully represented the defendant in the case, Patrick Kennedy, said that he and others on the defense legal team, in researching how various jurisdictions treat child rape, had actually looked into what military law said on the subject. All they found was an old provision making rape a capital offense; it predated the court’s modern death penalty jurisprudence, under which the death penalty for the rape of an adult woman was ruled unconstitutional in 1977.

“We just assumed it was defunct,” Mr. Fisher said of the military provision. “We figured if somebody in the government thought otherwise, we’d hear about it.”

The Justice Department declined to comment. “We do not comment on internal deliberative matters,” said Erik Ablin of the department’s Office of Public Affairs. The lawyers in the Jefferson Parish, La., district attorney’s office who handled the case for the state, in defense of Louisiana’s child rape law, were out of the office this week. Steve Wimberly, the lawyer in the office designated to handle press inquiries about the Supreme Court case, did not return a telephone call.

Any losing party in the Supreme Court can file a petition within 25 days asking the justices to reconsider their decision. Granting such a petition requires a majority vote. Although these petitions are filed rather often, they are, not surprisingly, almost never granted.

R. Ted Cruz, who argued the case in support of Louisiana on behalf of a coalition of 10 states, said in an interview that the chance that the court would reconsider the decision was “extremely unlikely” even if Louisiana brought the omission to the justices’ attention. “A member of the majority would have to change his mind, but it’s obvious that both sides gave this case very careful consideration,” Mr. Cruz said. The vote in the case was 5 to 4.

At the time of the argument, Mr. Cruz was the Texas solicitor general. He has since gone into private practice. In preparing for the case, he said, the existence of the military provision simply “eluded everyone’s research.”

No one in the military has been charged with a capital crime yet under the revised provision. And despite the flurry of activity surrounding the death penalty, the military has not in fact executed anyone for decades. Its last execution took place on April 13, 1961, when Pvt. John A. Bennett was put to death by hanging. His crime: the rape of an 11-year-old girl.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Or you could blame an electorate that was too feeble to follow the instructions on the ballot. It just wasn't that hard, people (though admittedly it did make a mess).

Personally I like letting the machine count them, period. Its not biased. Can it be rigged...I guess so, but I would think its much less likely than a partisan pollster messing with a paper ballot to change/invalidate a vote.

It ain't an election until the Democrats try some new form of cheating.

[Zool]

Florida

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Or you could blame an electorate that was too feeble to follow the instructions on the ballot. It just wasn't that hard, people (though admittedly it did make a mess).

Personally I like letting the machine count them, period. Its not biased. Can it be rigged...I guess so, but I would think its much less likely than a partisan pollster messing with a paper ballot to change/invalidate a vote.

It ain't an election until the Democrats try some new form of cheating.

Hard to do after all the new ways were discovered by the republicans.

http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2007/04/republican_vote.html

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_stolen

http://richmonddemocrat.blogspot.com/2006/10/republican-voter-fraud-investigation.html

http://www.klas-tv.com/global/story.asp?s=2421595

[mraynrand]

Or you could blame an electorate that was too feeble to follow the instructions on the ballot. It just wasn't that hard, people (though admittedly it did make a mess).

Personally I like letting the machine count them, period. Its not biased. Can it be rigged...I guess so, but I would think its much less likely than a partisan pollster messing with a paper ballot to change/invalidate a vote.

It ain't an election until the Democrats try some new form of cheating.

Hard to do after all the new ways were discovered by the republicans.

http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2007/04/republican_vote.html

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_stolen

http://richmonddemocrat.blogspot.com/2006/10/republican-voter-fraud-investigation.html

http://www.klas-tv.com/global/story.asp?s=2421595

Look at those reputable sources! Do you really believe all that shit you read, TY. Geezus, with respect to FL in 2000, even the NYT eventually determined that there was no cause for believing the election was decided unfairly. Hell, just the early call in favor of Gore probably swung several thousand votes because of the time zone effect. And If Gore really cared about an honest result, why only recount in heavily Dem counties? Why try to block absentee ballots from the military? Why try to have machine read ballots read by hand. The very same machine ballots that can be changed by the reader and can easily be 'misread' by the holder? And why have the FL supreme court involve itself in he first place in a process that's not in their control? The Truth about 2000 was essentially that it was the equivalent of a triple overtime basketball game and Gore blamed the officials. If you scoured the state, you could easily find glitches on both sides, that typically happen in every election (And I'm almost certain that you'll respond to this post with all sorts of these little irregularities. Why bother? I kind find you all sorts from the other side). The margin was within the range of standard error. Gore wasn't cheated - he was extremely unlucky, and if Bush were in his shoes he could have felt just as jobbed. I feel for Dems that lost that election, cuz losing it that way sucked. But that's different from being cheated. The real question Gore had to ask himself (as does a team that loses a triple overtime game) is: Why was the damn election/game so close to begin with - like the Packers playing the at the Bears in 1997 - Gore had to be thinking: "The economy is outstanding, there are no war issues and I still lose!" Maybe he just wasn't that great a candidate.

With respect to 2004, clearly the only major frauds were Dem. 1) In Ohio, ACORN was giving out drugs to pay for fraudulent votes from idiots using cartoon and other common names. 2) In King County, WA, the vote was recounted three times, until enough votes could be 'discovered' in favor of the Dem Governor. Somehow, amazingly, there were thousands more votes cast in highly Dem King county than registered voters, yet the Dem candidate won after three recounts. Same in Milwaukee - where votes exceeded registered voters by thousands. Why didn't all those Lawyers who were stationed in Ohio (where Bush won by about 100K), rush to Milwaukee and Seattle to investigate those obvious cases of fraud?
But the truth of Ohio in 2004 was that NOT one single voting district reported irregularities - and each voting district has one Republican and one Democrat on the oversight.

[MJZiggy]

Why didn't all those Lawyers who were stationed in Ohio (where Bush won by about 100K), rush to Milwaukee and Seattle to investigate those obvious cases of fraud?

Duh!! Because they weren't licensed in Ohio (don't jump all over me I'm being mostly facetious).

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Or you could blame an electorate that was too feeble to follow the instructions on the ballot. It just wasn't that hard, people (though admittedly it did make a mess).

Personally I like letting the machine count them, period. Its not biased. Can it be rigged...I guess so, but I would think its much less likely than a partisan pollster messing with a paper ballot to change/invalidate a vote.

It ain't an election until the Democrats try some new form of cheating.

Hard to do after all the new ways were discovered by the republicans.

http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2007/04/republican_vote.html

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_stolen

http://richmonddemocrat.blogspot.com/2006/10/republican-voter-fraud-investigation.html

http://www.klas-tv.com/global/story.asp?s=2421595

Look at those reputable sources! Do you really believe all that shit you read, TY. Geezus, with respect to FL in 2000, even the NYT eventually determined that there was no cause for believing the election was decided unfairly. Hell, just the early call in favor of Gore probably swung several thousand votes because of the time zone effect. And If Gore really cared about an honest result, why only recount in heavily Dem counties? Why try to block absentee ballots from the military? Why try to have machine read ballots read by hand. The very same machine ballots that can be changed by the reader and can easily be 'misread' by the holder? And why have the FL supreme court involve itself in he first place in a process that's not in their control? The Truth about 2000 was essentially that it was the equivalent of a triple overtime basketball game and Gore blamed the officials. If you scoured the state, you could easily find glitches on both sides, that typically happen in every election (And I'm almost certain that you'll respond to this post with all sorts of these little irregularities. Why bother? I kind find you all sorts from the other side). The margin was within the range of standard error. Gore wasn't cheated - he was extremely unlucky, and if Bush were in his shoes he could have felt just as jobbed. I feel for Dems that lost that election, cuz losing it that way sucked. But that's different from being cheated. The real question Gore had to ask himself (as does a team that loses a triple overtime game) is: Why was the damn election/game so close to begin with - like the Packers playing the at the Bears in 1997 - Gore had to be thinking: "The economy is outstanding, there are no war issues and I still lose!" Maybe he just wasn't that great a candidate.

With respect to 2004, clearly the only major frauds were Dem. 1) In Ohio, ACORN was giving out drugs to pay for fraudulent votes from idiots using cartoon and other common names. 2) In King County, WA, the vote was recounted three times, until enough votes could be 'discovered' in favor of the Dem Governor. Somehow, amazingly, there were thousands more votes cast in highly Dem King county than registered voters, yet the Dem candidate won after three recounts. Same in Milwaukee - where votes exceeded registered voters by thousands. Why didn't all those Lawyers who were stationed in Ohio (where Bush won by about 100K), rush to Milwaukee and Seattle to investigate those obvious cases of fraud?
But the truth of Ohio in 2004 was that NOT one single voting district reported irregularities - and each voting district has one Republican and one Democrat on the oversight.

Rolling Stone is a credible magazine. Care to tell me what is wrong with them?

OR with KLAS..a tv station?

Sorry, but you are wrong.

Let's check out some more "poor" sources:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/100/story/17532.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/14/politics/main649380.shtml

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_republican_war_on_voting

http://www.seminolechronicle.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2004/12/16/41c2fdb042ea1

http://www.legitgov.org/coup_2004.html

http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2004/Oct-16-Sat-2004/news/25015189.html

[bobblehead]

Its pretty commonly accepted that republicans cheat to win elections. That is why every time a democrat loses a close one it ends up in court....they were cheated. But when a republican loses a close one he concedes....he obviously didn't cheat enough (see the case you talked about in washington).

Republicans are evil malicious people who can't be trusted. Repeat it....droooonnne it. Republicans are evil and anything we say or imply about them is acceptable. Democrats are honorable beacons of justice....except that dude with 90k in his freezer who obviously was the victim of some republican janitor planting it there.

[mraynrand]

Sorry, but you are wrong.

I'll take your 'richmonddemocrat.blogspot.com' and raise you the NYT. And every other reputable newspaper that investigated the 2000 election. As I predicted, you barfed up a bunch of articles about voting irregularity. Happens in every election, on both sides. Some examples are more egregious than others - like Seattle and Mlwaukee in 2004.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Sorry, but you are wrong.

I'll take your 'richmonddemocrat.blogspot.com' and raise you the NYT. And every other reputable newspaper that investigated the 2000 election. As I predicted, you barfed up a bunch of articles about voting irregularity. Happens in every election, on both sides. Some examples are more egregious than others - like Seattle and Mlwaukee in 2004.

Try and follow along. I never posted one thing about 2000...except the voter rolls were purged in florida of people that shoulda been able to vote. That is not even debatable.

I posted about 2004. And, there were plenty of irregularities...if you want to talk about both sides..fine. However, my post was in response to Harvey's about Dem's...so, if someone is playing partisan politics...address him.