Yes Virginia, there is a Right to Bear Arms

I wrote back in March about the Supreme Court taking up the issue of the Second Amendment. I admittedly was somewhat optimistic given the current make up of the court. Well I am happy to report that the Supreme Court goes this one right.

In DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. HELLER the Court decided that the District of Columbia prohibition on the possession of usable handguns in the home violates the Second Amendment to the Constitution. Nice!!!

The ruling actually went further by noting that the District of Columbia's prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense violates the 2nd Amendment as well.

This is not to say that there can't be reasonable gun laws - there can. What this does say though is that there is a true right to bear arms and we don't have to be part of a militia or any other nonsense that the Left throws out. We Americans have a right also for self defense and my general feeling (to quote John Lott) is More Guns, Less Crime.

The Court's opinion and dissent can be found here.

Now if only the Court could get decide that child rape is crime worthy of the death penalty.

OS

Follow up to California Gay Marriage ruling.

In my last post on the California Supreme Court overturning the voter approved ban on Gay Marriage I noted how really huge a cultural shift this is. Well Dennis Prager (as usual) says it better than I did over at Townhall.com.

Prager writes:

"Nothing imaginable -- leftward or rightward -- would constitute as radical a change in the way society is structured as this redefining of marriage for the first time in history: ... And what is particularly amazing is that virtually none of those who support this decision -- let alone the four compassionate justices -- acknowledge this ... This lack of acknowledgment -- or even awareness -- of how society-changing is this redefinition of marriage is one reason the decision was made."

"Another reason for this decision is arrogance. First, the arrogance of four individuals to impose their understanding of what is right and wrong on the rest of society. And second is the arrogance of the four compassionate ones in assuming that all thinkers, theologians, philosophers, religions and moral systems in history were wrong, while they and their supporters have seen a moral light never seen before. Not a single religion or moral philosophical system -- East or West -- since antiquity ever defined marriage as between members of the same sex."

This is required reading and as always, Prager is spot on. This is not about gay marriage or being anti-gay. It is about the price generations of our children and future generations will have to pay for what amounts to judicial arrogance, hubris and general tunnel vision and stupidity dealing with what is not a simple subject.

The full article can be found at Townhall.com.

OS

California Gay Ban Overturned

The Associated Press is in ecstasy (no pun intended) with the story that the voter-approved ban on gay marriage in California has been overturned by the California Supreme Court - story is here.

Quotes heard from supporters (from the story):

"I've been waiting for this all my life.."
"This is a life-affirming moment."
"This is a message that says all of us are entitled to human dignity."
"Today the California Supreme Court took a giant leap to ensure that everybody — not just in the state of California, but throughout the country — will have equal treatment under the law,"

In the opinion for the measure I saw this quote:

"Our state now recognizes that an individual's capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation,"

So bring it on!!! I see no reason why men cannot have two wives (multiple wives - why stop at 2?), women cannot have many husbands, multiple partnerships (why keep it traditional - you can have a union with 2 men and 3 women right?). What is wrong with polygamy and what sort of argument can one make in support of a measure such as this and not for polygamy. The Court did not say the "loving and long-term committed relationship" has to be only with one individual. And by the way - what does committed mean? I think the court owes the people some clarity as to what these terms mean?

Finally, this decision makes no constraint over who can get married? Can a son marry his mother (certainly could be a "loving and long-term committed relationship"). And before any wackos write me and suggest something "strange and weird" why wouldn't a son "marry" his mother if she had no insurance and he wanted to get her covered under his plan? What's wrong with that?

This is a huge cultural change that a minuscule segment of society is causing with no thought to its overall implications. Rather the folks involved are (in my opinion) self centered and whiners and not willing to acknowledge that their sexual choice or orientation does not need validation from Government to give their life dignity or their relationship meaning. Every argument that is being made for same sex marriage can be made for all kind of deviant (yes deviant - or straying from the accepted norm - deal with it!!! - it is not homophobic to consider this point!) "marriages" and this has the capacity to totally destroy this country as we know it. Don't think so? Think of all the abuse that this "marriage" proposal and all associated issues can bring. How can companies survive when they are getting insurance requests from families consisting of 20 adults (hey they are all married?).

OS predicts it here - there will be a backlash and there will be eventually be serious damage to our country because of this. People need to shut the hell up and just live, not throw their sexuality problems out for Government to solve. America is not ready for this (and never will be) regardless of what Massachusetts and California think. Gay and Lesbians are going to learn quite quickly that a majority of Americans don't want to make their behavior a norm and will pass the laws to exercise that.

OS

The Right to Bear Arms is a Right

The Financial Times website is reporting a story which states in part:

The US Supreme Court appears ready to rule that Americans have a constitutional right to keep a gun in their home for self-defence, a ruling that could help Republicans in the upcoming presidential election.
...
By the end of Tuesday’s session, it appeared clear that a majority of the court would rule that the US constitution protects the right of individual Americans to “keep and bear arms” – but that federal, state and local governments will retain some powers to regulate firearms.

I have to admit having this turned over to the Supreme Court didn't give me the warm fuzzies but it looks like the right ruling will come out of the Men in Black (not including Ginsberg) but I am more or less a Second Amendment absolutist (why do we accept limitations on the 2nd Amendment but not the 1st...? Why is one more sacrosanct than the other) but will be following this story and post an update when the ruling comes.

OS