US Supreme Court
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court on Tuesday overturned a long-standing ruling that stopped police from initiating questions unless a defendant's lawyer was present, a move that will make it easier for prosecutors to interrogate suspects.
Mike Ruppert claims to be is in danger for coming out of retirement to speak out about events, despite his tacit agreement to remain silent. Please tell people about him and his work. ~PFN
UPDATE OCTOBER 6, 2008 -- OPEN WIDE THE JAWS -Monday, October 6, 2008 - 7:58 PM
WHAT REALLY HAPPENED TODAY Tuesday, September 29, 2008, 7 P.M.
UPDATE -- OPEN WIDE THE JAWS -Monday, October 6, 2008 - 7:58 PM
Historic decision of the US Supreme Court declared the longlasting Washington D.C. gun ban unconstitutional and upheld the general meaning of the 2nd Amendment as an individual right to keep arms.
The Supreme Court states at the end of the decision: "Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct. We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals."
Briefly: US Supreme Court confirmed the individual right to keep handguns at home for self-defense and needn't provide them with the trigger lock or keep them disassembled. The ruling does't affect the semi-automatic and automatic firearms ban.
The Washington police already starts to implement the Supreme Court ruling.
I don't have a gun. I'm an European and I even live in a state which wouldn't allow to freely keep and bear arms or to form a militia, so I have only my word - that's my only defense against that what seems to be happening.
I took the hour and a half (because I find the case be really very important for the Americans and the future of freedom) and I was listening thoroughly the whole disputation in the Supreme Court in the case DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ET AL v. DICK ANTHONY HELLER.
I guess I have an important note:
They disputed all the words in the 2nd Amendment and many aspects and possible meanings of the words from elsewhere - machine guns, handguns, armor piercing bullets (and various laws and regulations, sometimes apparently irrelevant in the sense when one have to decide the case according to the US Constitution - as the superior law - the US Supreme Court IMHO have no right to contradict in its judgments, nor duty to follow any precedents or laws - except the US Constitution they've the judges taken the oath to defend - as a whole), but they have "forgotten" the main one word - as it would be a big taboo - they absolutely avoided the word free - its meaning in the 2nd Amendment ("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.")
To explain what I mean, I'll try to describe how I understand the meaning of the 2nd Amendment in the context of the US Constitutional law by my own words (I'll borrow some):
Because there is a constant danger a state, its government, could develop into a tyranny - rendering the state and its constituents unfree - the people's right to keep and bear the arms generally (not just to form the militia) should not be infringed - because the people can defend the freedom only if they are constantly armed and continuously form a real threat of a real power against possible tyrants (foreign or domestic) - to take them down - if needed even by using the armed force - in case the tyrants would infringe, abridge or dissolve their unalienable rights and freedoms, pursuing invariably the same Object evincing a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism.(I'm borrowing this from the 6th sentence of the Declaration of Independence)