Praise the Lord and Pass the Ammunition

“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 opinion of the Supreme Court may be found here:

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/Sections/NEWS/PDFs/16716940.pdf

Today, the Supreme Court of the United States upheld the peoples right to "keep and bear arms", or in modern parlance "possess and carry", subject to reasonable restrictions. It found that the District of Columbia's policy that made it unlawful to carry or possess an unlicensed firearm, and it's refusal to then issue licenses, UNREASONABLE.

It found that in the context of the constitution, written in a time and place where the majority owned firearms and carried them not only in the furtherance of their livelihood but in self-defense, that our founding fathers meant what they said... the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Certainly the British would have had a much easier time at Lexington and Concord, not to mention Bunker Hill, had the Massachusetts colony implemented the same laws and policies as our modern capitol. After all, was not Lexington and Concord simply the British attempt to seize "unlawful", by their standard, arms?


"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State", is a prefatory clause, not limiting the following clause, but stating a purpose.

The operative clause being: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The court pointing out that in referring to "the people" the constitution refers to it's citizens, not it's army or any other organization. "the right of the people peaceably to assemble" does not imply membership in some sanctioned organization... it being impossible for an individual to assemble without others.

By all means, read the court's opinion... it's a bit lengthy (157 pages in the pdf version) but well worth the read, and one could argue, a civic duty.

What I find most difficult to understand is the dissenting opinion, how taking the constitution into the context of it's times, one could argue that the amendment merely protects the right to be in a militia, is beyond my grasp. Either we've been doing it wrong since day one, given the history of our behavior, or more likely we are ignoring history and context in the attempt to justify our own position in the furtherance of our own agenda.

Interpreting the right as a right to join a (the?) militia would certainly have major implications, would citizens then have the right to join regardless of the current military standards for fitness? What impact would a constitutional right to serve have on the current 'don't ask, don't tell' policy. Although for some reason I get the feeling that that would be perfectly okay with those who want to ban gun ownership.

Well at least our rights are secure for the moment.

~Finntann~

Rozita! What? No Caller ID?

Any excuse will do!

Another interesting development in the Texas polygamy case:

According to the Colorado Springs Gazette, a phone number linked to a Colorado Springs woman was used to make calls to a Texas crisis hot line in the days leading up to a raid on a polygamist compound in Texas, records show. According to newly released court documents, Texas Rangers tracked the number to Rozita E. Swinton last week before traveling to Colorado Springs to interview her as part of their investigation into the April 4 raid at the Yearning for Zion ranch near Eldorado, Texas.

So, let's see if I understand this... you're sitting at your desk, fuming about the evil polygamists living down the street and the phone rings. A sobbing young woman begins to relate a horrid tale of rape and abuse. Action must be taken, bring in the sheriff and FBI, bring in the armored personnel carriers... RAID THE COMPOUND!!! Caller ID? What Caller ID?

What is with these people and how stupid do they think we are? Apparently they think we are pretty stupid, and we in our ignorance far exceed their expectations.

According to the Springs arrest affidavit, Texas Rangers determined the same phone that police in Colorado Springs linked to the Feb. 26 call had also been used to make false distress calls to the New-Bridge Family Shelter in San Angelo, Texas, on March 29 and March 30. In those calls, authorities allege, Swinton claimed to be a teenage girl named Sarah Barlow - the third wife of a 49-year-old man at the polygamist ranch. Read the whole story here:
http://www.gazette.com/articles/swinton_35580___article.html/calls_colorado.html

If I pick up my phone, dial 911 and hang up, the police will show up at my door, and I live so far out in the country I don't even get cell phone service. It is inconceivable that the Texas authorities did not know that the phone call was fraudulent and coming from out of state, and if they didn't they are completely and utterly incompetent. This woman would call and talk for hours...not minutes, more than ample time for the authorities if they so desired, to trace the call (which I will agree they had probable cause to do). Even if she was calling from a cell phone they could determine that it wasn't originating locally, as she would be on a cell tower in Colorado Springs, not in Texas.

The Texas authorities, without a doubt, were simply waiting for an excuse to raid this ranch. I would venture that in their desire 'to get in there', they acted in bad faith, if they did not know that the calls were fraudulent it was out of a desire not to know, a sin of omission so to speak, and trampled the constitution underfoot to do so. As much as the alleged behavior of the polygamists disgusts me, the actions of the authorities in Texas disgusts me just as much if not more. At least theoretically, the polygamists are acting on their beliefs and their faith... what's the state of Texas' excuse?

For those who find the FLDS practices and beliefs repulsive, consider that when they moved to Texas in 2003 the state's law allowed 14 year olds to marry with parental consent. That law wasn't amended until September 1, 2005 when the age was raised to 16. At least according to Texas Law:
http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/FA/content/htm/fa.001.00.000002.00.htm

I hear a number of people decrying the fact of married and pregnant 16 year olds... which unfortunately under Texas law is utterly and completely LEGAL! Looking at Texas law, theoretically, if a girl turned 14 on August 31st 2005 she could have been legally married on that day with parental consent. Still 14, she could have had her first child in May of 2006, her second child in February of 2007 at age 15, her third child in November 2007, and be five months pregnant today at age 16 years eight months. As repugnant this scenario is to most of us, it is still legal under Texas law (I'm not a lawyer, but I presume people married under the old law prior to their 16th birthday would fall under some sort of 'grandfather' clause).

So now the state of Texas is about to put 416 children into foster care, which one might rationally argue is an act of abuse in and of itself. Not only are these children being put into foster care, but I would wager that it will not be up to the same moral standards (polygamy issues aside) that they were raised under.

Setting aside their belief in polygamy and marriage at a young age, what do these people profess a faith in? A devout and worshipful life, hard work, a belief that modern society is corrupt? No TV, No Internet, Wives subservient to their husbands? Husbands subservient to the church? Children mindful and obedient? In other words a fundamentalist lifestyle? What riles us up more? Their polygamist belief system or the fact that they turn their backs on the rest of us as morally corrupt sinners? What does it say about us that the legal age of consent in Texas is 17 and marriage 18? We can have sex at 17 without our parents consent but we can't marry until 18 without it? We can make the rational decision to marry three years before we can make the rational decision to drink? We are wise enough to make decisions about sex, but not about politics at 17? Our laws are a conflicting hodgepodge of irrational and illogical boundaries. Why can't we all just get together and settle on an age at which someone is an adult? 18? 21? Heck... I'm sure the good state of Texas doesn't have any problems trying 14 year olds charged with murder as adults, seems like we kind of want our cake and want to eat it too!

~Finntann~

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. Thomas Jefferson

I find several things in the news today rather disturbing, indicative of the the gradual erosion of our rights and liberties, most given up without the merest whimper on our part. First is the Orthodox Jewish man removed from a flight for not taking his seat when requested to, since he was praying the Amidah, a prayer that is supposed to be said three times a day, not interrupted, and is only 3-4 minutes long. My understanding from the various articles I have read is that this incident took place during boarding, the man apologized at the end of his prayer, and that even with the time it took to remove the man from the flight, it arrived on time.

My problem here is not with removing passengers for failing to comply with flight attendants instructions, but in my frequent experience passengers often stand in the aisles or in the back of the plane for various reasons, presumably thinking that they are 'out of the way'. I have never seen a businessman on his cell phone asked to sit while standing back near the lavatories during boarding, and it is very hit or miss whether or not a person standing in the aisle talking with friends before take off will be asked to sit down, as I have been forced to squeeze past them on many occasions. This appears to me to be a selective enforcement of the rules which is a dangerous step down the road to tyranny. You can stand up so long as you look 'normal' and aren't acting 'weird'. What has not been reported in the accounts is how close to take-off the flight actually was, as this could have transpired anywhere from a few minutes to half an hour prior to the closing of the doors.

Undoubtedly, the orthodox practice of praying the Amidah, which means 'standing prayer' was probably an unfamiliar act to the crew involved, one must wonder if an Irish Roman Catholic priest standing in the back of the plane reciting the rosary would have been interrupted. There is a good description of the Amidah here: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/amidah.html

Have we become so intolerant that we can not accommodate the simplest of requests? Has religion become such an 'anti-social' politically incorrect behavior as to be banished from public sight? Or has fear become the overriding concern in this post 9/11 era. Has the herd mentality become so predominant that we viciously attack anything that is different? I participated in an online chat last night on this very subject and there seemed to be three predominant schools of thought.

1. The guy was a religious nut forcing his religion on everyone else, that he did this on purpose to either make a statement or force the airline to remove him in order to pursue legal action. And that religious expression has no place on an airplane or in any public place.

2. That everyone must follow the rules, no matter what, and that in this post 9/11 world blind obedience is a prerequisite to order. That even if singled out, one must comply for the sake of the public good. I suppose, by that logic, that we ought to resume payment of the tea tax to the British.

3. That the airline and/or the crew were completely wrong, that the man was out of the way, harming no one, and that the crew had been told he would be done in 1 or 2 minutes. They were on a power trip, forcing this poor man to comply for nothing more than their own egos.

I would venture that the man's activities were unfamiliar to the crew involved and made them nervous. Not sure of what he was doing or why, they requested the man take his seat, and when he did not comply it turned into something of a 'power' issue for them. I find it odd that the crew summoned a customer service agent to remover the man, and not the Port Authority or TSA. If he was such a risk, and this was such a significant incident the airline was derelict in it's duty by not involving the proper authorities.

Of curious note, this is not the first time that this has happened. This also occurred on 1 September 2006 when Air Canada removed a Hasidic Jew began praying in his seat while rocking back and forth, an activity called ’shokeling’, as the plane began its roll out to the runway. The flight attendant told him that he was making the other passengers nervous and would have to leave, and had the gall to announce to the other passengers 'that it was all right, he wasn't Muslim'. The airlines response was to offer crews 'sensitivity training'.

The evolving issue in Texas is also of some concern, the latest seems to be that the phone call prompting the raid was the result of a 'hoax' phone call from a woman in Colorado. I haven't seen it in the national news, but the local Colorado news is reporting that the call was actually traced to the woman by the FBI. Regardless of our personal feelings on the religious beliefs of these people, I am astounded that the authorities rounded up all the children from the 'ranch' which is larger in population than many Texas towns. I could understand removing the children from the household of the alleged threat, but imagine if the police in your town received an anonymous call about abuse... would they round up everyone in the neighborhood if they could not determine which house it was occurring in?

What is most disturbing is how the public at large readily accepts such incidents and the official explanations for them at face value. What would our founding fathers have to say? The state psychiatrist Dr Bruce Perry testified that " the girls he interviewed said they freely chose to marry young. But he said those choices were based on lessons drilled into them from birth." Well DUH? Can't that be said of anyone? Is not the fact that good Catholic, or Jewish, or Amish girls marry within their faith due to lessons drilled into them from birth. As long as the girls are over 16 and marry with the consent of their parents Dr Perry's personal beliefs are irrelevant. I am not saying that I agree with the Texas law, only that that is what it is... if the parents are okay with their 16 year olds marrying 49, 59, or even 69 year olds the states position outside the law is completely irrelevant as well. I firmly believe that any violations of Texas law should be prosecuted, but that outside the law the personal beliefs of the sheriff, social workers, or any expert witnesses they care to produce are meaningless.

One must question what the underlying motivations of the authorities in Texas are... are they really concerned about the children, or is this a convenient time and excuse to rid their community of an embarrassment, a religious community that exists in violation of their own beliefs? As one must question the motives of the airline in removing the praying man from he plane. I was amazed at how often people quoted Matthew 6:6 'that condemns people who pray only so that people might see them do so', in association with this incident. It would be funny if they weren't so darn serious, really... quoting the New Testament as an example of behavior for a Jew to follow. Are we so narrow minded?

It is amazing how willing we are give up our hard earned freedoms, be it for the sake of political correctness or for the false illusion of security. I heard repeatedly that while the man had the right to pray, we must give that right up in this post 9/11 world in order to obtain security. Might I offer the advice of a few of our founding fathers on this subject:

THOMAS JEFFERSON: I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.

JOHN ADAMS: But a Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever.

JAMES MADISON: I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.

BENJAMIN FRANKLIN: Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

And while he is not considered one of our founding fathers, his advice is certainly appropriate:

JUDGE GIDEON J. TUCKER: No man's life, liberty or property are safe while the legislature is in session.


Just food for thought, and the advice to defend your rights and liberties vehemently and without pause.

~Finntann~