Please bear in mind that in my view of the goddamyankee gummint, the People are best served when the party in the White House controls only one house of Congress, with the opposition controlling the other; and with the Supreme Court sitting square in the middle to make sure everyone plays according to the rules laid down in the Constitution. This insures that only important bills get passed, and that ideological bovine feces dies before reaching the President's desk. Unfortunately, it's been many years since this situation obtained.

The reason I am glad the Supremes are leaning a little to the right is because of the antigun, anti-personal liberties types in the Congress and the White House. There is a major case coming up, Parker v. the District of Columbia, that if the gods are kind will be decided in such a way as to put the antigun fascists (and the term is most decidedly not contradictory - look at your history books) out of business for good.

If decided in favor of Parker, the DC laws that prohibit honest citizens of Washington, DC from owning and using firearms will be declared unconstitutional. The precedent will be to strike down antigun laws across the country. And although I do not expect the Democrats to be that smart in the Congress, it will torpedo pending legislation proposed by Carolyn McCarthy, the antigun fanatic from New York City, that another antigun fanatic, Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco, had the gall to sneak past the House on a voice vote of questionable legality.

Curious George is no prize pig in this arena, either. The Patriot Act he got pushed through Congress in the hysteria following 9/11 has gone a long way toward moving this country away from the ideals set down in the Constitution. Not since World War II, in an episode that still besmirches our national escutcheon, has the government turned on its citizens and deprived them of civil rights the way the Bush Administration has done. There are cases pending relating to the so-called war on terror that could go a long way toward restoring our civil rights to what they were on September 10, 2001. And the Roberts Court has already shown its distaste for what Bush and his henchmen have done.

Yes, I think right now we do need a Court that's a little conservative, in the sense that they will act to conserve our rights in a time when they are under attack from both parties.

Why does this deserve a check? Simply becasue it is an example of conservative spleen?

Sorry fella, this court - ScAlito in particular - find little problem in the government acting in ways laid forth in the Patriot Act, DTA, MCA and others. Remember it was Alito who wrote an opinion that it was OK for police officers to shoot unarmed suspects in the back if they were fleeing - something straight out of a movie about the French Resistance.

As for your silly rant about guns - I take it then that since the 2nd Amendment specifies ARMS not guns, that you believe that any resident who has not broken the law should be allowed to also "keep and bear" WMDs. After all they were called the Strategic ARMS Limitation Talks.

Oh I see, you draw the line at unconvicted gang-bangers being able to hold a city hostage with a nuke?

But where is your precious 2nd Amendment protection that must be unsullied?

Oh I see, it really only applies to a preternatural predeliction for pistols

Degs, I've been struggling for years to come up with a valid answer to the "WMD" argument against the individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment. I think I have one.

When the amendment was drafted, the individual possession of firearms was unquestioned. In order to participate in the militia, militia members were required to supply their own arms and accouterments, but those arms were their private property.

Heavier weapons, however, came from the state or federal government. Until almost 100 years after the Second Amendment was written, state and local militias didn't supply their own cannon, or for that matter, no naval militia ever built or supplied its own frigate or ship of the line. While the private ownership of these items wasn't illegal (at least it wasn't considered illegal when the various state militias began to supply artillery), it was rare.

So, one interpretation that could address your concern is that the individual can only own those weapons that a militiaman could carry into the field -- his own small arms, but not his own artillery, tanks, aircraft or WMD. While the ownership of more advanced weapons wouldn't be proscribed by the amendment, the state would have a vested interest in knowning the whereabouts of such weapons (and, in any case, they are expensive enough in both development and operational concerns that individual ownership is a moot point). So real assault weapons, by which I mean machine guns currently regulated under the National Firearms Act of 1935 would be legal (as they are, in any case, in all but a few states), but heavier weapons would be adminsitrated by the state or federal government.

You could aslo reasonably argue that the militia isn't being served by the presence of arms in some venues -- places where alcohol is served, for example. Like the rights of the First Amendment, the rights of the Second Amendment apply to individuals, and like the rights of the First Amendment, the rights of the second are not absolute. You can't yell "fire" in a crowded movie house, or incite a riot; you have a right to own a gun, and carry a gun, but not into every venue.

I'm interested in hearing what you think about this reasoning.

The WMD arguement is a moot point with no real relevance to gun control issues. I would prefer an arguement that limited the type and number of weapons that one could own to what a court determines to be something like a "reasonable measure of self-defense." (standards would be different for licensed gun sellers, etc.). I would like to see fully automatic weapons and assault rifles to be considered outside of this realm.

I think thats the whole point - gun advocates don't want to remove the right of a person to defend himself, and gun control advocates don't want that right to morph into the ability to cause excessive criminal harm.

As for "anti-gun fascists", what history book would you suggest I read? If the poster is referring to the fact that many fascist governments have discouraged private ownership of weapons in order to make the population more helpless - I would love to know where I can find such a movement in the US today. You can't really think that liberals actually have that goal. Its a lie, a despicable term, and its use only indicates the author's intent to derail an important constitutional discussion. Use of such terms automatically begins to undermine the authors dignity and the arguement he\she makes.

If it is okay for Police to shoot an "unarmed fleeing suspect in the back" why are Border Patrol agents Campos and Romos doing hard time for the next 10 or 12 years? Somebody has their legal definitions screwed up here.

It isn't okay to shoot an unarmed fleeing suspect in the back. Just because Alito says so doesn't make it law.

As to why they're serving 12 years:

1. They shot him and conspired in a cover-up. If they had come clean on what happened, they may have lost their jobs, but that's about it.

2. They refused a plea bargain which would have let them off much more leniently. They chose to gamble and go "all-in". They lost their gamble.

Law enforcement officers are where the rubber meets the road, and have incredible power. Border agents are allowed to shoot and kill you if you throw a rock at them (or even if they just say you do). Like prosecutors, they have tremendous power, and with such power comes tremendous responsibility and accountability.

The language of the First Amendment ("Congress shall make no law...") is far more absolutist than that of the Second, yet courts have maintained several forms of limitations on speech, such as defamation, "fighting words," and time-and-place restrictions on public demonstrations. Presumably the Second Amendment can be amenable to some sort of similar analysis that gives it meaning but still sets limits.

So apparently Campos and Romos were defended by 1st year law students or what? Scooter Libby lies like a cheap rug and walks thanks to the Great Decider but two Border agents go to the slammer for the next decade. Is this a great country or what??????

When the Second Amendment was drafted, a "well regulated militia" was thought to be vital to national security, and it was. The idea (you could look it up) was that because the infant United States had no standing army to speak of (or inclination to start one) our citizens would need their own weapons to protect their country.

Well now we have a HUGE standing army and a "well regulated militia". It's called the National Guard. Why then do some people think they can own guns outside their service to the Army or the "militia"? If membership in the Guard/militia was a precondition to gun ownership (as the 2nd Amendment suggests it should be) we' d have fewer yahoos clamoring for the "right' to shoot up the joint with assault rifles.

The fellow who wants us to pry his gun "from his cold dead fingers" is not a member of any militia I recognize. Why does he even have a gun? Hint: It's not because of the Second Amendment

The Libby travesty has no bearing on the CBP agents' fate. Shall we revisit Ethel & Julius Rosenberg, and O.J. Simpson while we're at it?

As far as the CBP agents, are you really trying to say that their attorneys didn't tell them the risk of refusing to plead? If so, their attorneys were grossly negligent. Then again, there are plenty of poor white, Mexican and black folks who have gotten screwed in court, either by incompetent attorneys or the Mark Furmans of the world.

Their sentence certainly seems harsh, but it was they who chose to gamble. But take heart, maybe Bush will pardon them just before he leaves office. If so, it will be among the precious few of his actions with which I agree, and the time served just about right.

... nor does the present court majority want to "conserve the Constitution" or its ideals

it got a check because complaints started being generated regarding the negative ratings of every bush supporter's post, that is why..lol....

Viretarmis: The National Guard, although it falls under the limited authority of the states, is NOT the militia as it is discussed in the U.S. Constitution. The reason this it isn' t has almost nothing to do with the Second Amendment.

The National Guard is a paid part of the Department of Defense -- it is a federal entity. The militia is not a federal entity, which is why Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States makes provisions for paying the militia when it is in the service of the United States. "Congress shall have the right...to provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the Militia and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States...."

Provisions for paying and organizing the standing Army of the U.S. fall under a different part of the Constitution. The National Guard is paid under THAT article. It's not a militia.

As for inclusion in the militia being necessary for firearms ownership, the members of the militia were, at the time, required to provide their own arms and equipment. Congress was given the right to do so, but it didn't exercise that right until the Civil War era. How can I provide my own arms to participate in the militia if other laws deny me the ownership of arms?

I believe that the very obvious point he was making was that gun control issues are no longer about "militias." The constitution talked about militias because they were used as a substitute for a standing army for a period of time. As it made sense to allow people to own guns for protection outside of their rousing militia-related adventures, the government left well-enough alone.

Now we have big urban cities, with big urban crime problems, involving plenty of guns. Gun violence as a major contributor to the crime rate was not really a big issue during the constitutional convention. Supporters of gun control would rather focus on the issue at hand, and rightly recognize that a 200 year old idea about national defense is worlds away from a crime issue. Point being, to point to the 2nd ammendment as a blanket ensurer of private gun ownership rights is a somewhat embarrasing strategy when it provides a clear picture of how the framers viewed gun ownership - as an act of organized, civil defense.

JW: The militia, meant to be able to overthrow a standing army or any other body of government was "every male between the ages of 18 and 45." By extension, every citizen of the U.S. That interpretation has not changed over the past 200 years, no matter what people who want to outlaw guns say. This described in several period sources, including Madison's correspondence, Mason's correspondence and the Federalist Papers. You're the militia. I'm the militia. It isn't a branch of government, but a volunteer program administered by government in some instances.

The but as I showed above, the Second Amendment is meaningless if it pertains to some collective right. I can't provide my own weapons and equipment while participating in the militia, if I can't own the weapons in the first place. It is a blanket protection of an individual civil right, because sans that protection it can't provide the "organized civil defense" of which you speak.

Say that this individual right is obsolete because we have big cities and crime really doesn't make sense. Loudspeakers make it much easier to incite a riot, but we don't say the right to free speech is obsolete.

What I object to most, however, spans more than the Second Amendment, which is the tortured reading of the Constitution to make it "say" things it plainly doesn't say. I think the Second Amendment interpretation used by gun controllers does this, but it is far from the only example. The Kelso decision provided one such example, and the various bans on religious displays on public property provide another. The worst is, of course, the abuse of the commerce clause to justify violations of the 10th Amendment -- until SCOTUS started ruling against some of the most extreme interpretations of the clause back in the 1990s.

The founders of the United States tried to set up a central government that had more authority than existed under the Articles of Confederation, but that authority was enumerated in the Constitution, and limited by the constitution and by its amendments, especially the Bill of Rights. Under the prevailing legal reasoning since 1937, there is apparently no limit on what the government is permitted to do. I've grown weary of listening to liberals who, correctly, criticize the USA Patriot Act and the overseas wiretapping because they are expansions of government power -- but then almost the next breath call for socialized medicine, also an expansion of government power.

The founders believed that the only way government power could be expanded was via the amendment process. When we got away from that methodology, we lost the limits on government that were designed to protect us from excess government intrustion in our lives, whether that intrusion was in the form of a wire tap or a gun permit. The genie is out of the bottle, and I doubt if it will ever return.