Gun owners should worry about the property rights ruling

http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewCommentary.asp?Page=\Commentary\archive\200506\COM20050628a.html

By Larry Pratt
CNSNews.com Commentary
June 28, 2005

The recent 5-4 ruling by the Supreme Court legislating away property rights in the United States should give pause to all gun owners, as well as all Americans.

The plain language of the Fifth Amendment limits eminent domain to the taking of private property for public purposes. "Public purposes" has been understood for more than 200 years to consist of roads, government buildings and similar public uses. This is still the general understanding by all but a handful of folks in black dresses.

The idea that the owner of a higher tax-yielding use should be able to get the government to grab another owner's property and give it to the user that pays higher taxes is quite simply a theft. In one afternoon, the Supreme Court has done away with private property in the U.S.

Do gun owners think they will remain immune from such tyrants? Already, at various times, six of the nine justices have said that U.S. law should conform to foreign law -- especially European law and UN treaties. How long until our gun laws are made to conform to say, England''s, where they have an almost total gun ban?

If the U.S. Constitution is no longer a protection against government, disarmament and tyranny are simply details to be worked out.

Gun owners have been telling the country for years that the courts are out of control and view the Constitution with contempt. Judges have told me to my face that my constitutional arguments could not prevail because court rulings went counter to what I had shown to be the clear meaning of the Constitution. Judges believe that they are above the law!

Maybe many Americans figured that, well, "that is just those gun nuts squealing." And, hey, even if the Constitution does protect an individual right to keep and bear arms, what's the matter with some gun control, right? I mean, who cares if judges today tend to twist the true meaning of the Second Amendment? Well, sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. And now that the gander is being sauteed, we gun owners are hearing a lot of honking.

OK, enough of that. Let's not prolong the "I told you so" moment. The important thing now is to determine what must be done.

Remember the Democrat cry that went up when Tom DeLay complained about the judges in this country, and how they should be held to account for their actions? Could it be that this Court decision has now changed people's attitudes and convinced a majority of Americans to support the impeachment of judges?

Has the latest outrage finally brought a majority to the point that they support Congress' role in exercising the Article III powers of the Constitution to remove jurisdiction of a whole bunch of subjects from the federal courts? And, most immediately, has the majority come to the point where we are ready to see states do what our forefathers did when the feds got out of control?

During the presidency of John Adams, the Sedition Act went on the books. It was a kind of McCain-Feingold campaign act, only less subtle. It said that a newspaper writer would go to jail for criticizing a federal official. Virginia and Kentucky issued stinging rebukes to the backers of this legislation in 1798 and threatened to nullify the law within the borders of their states if Congress did not repeal the unconstitutional ban on free speech.

Later, some 22 states passed laws nullifying the Fugitive Slave Act following the Supreme Court's Dred Scott decision which upheld it. It became impossible for federal marshals to apprehend and return escaped slaves in the north to their southern masters, in spite of federal law.

To save our gun rights, indeed, to save all of our freedoms, the time has come to bring the courts back under control.

States need to study the history of nullification. Congress needs to do its part to rein in the judges. In the words of the defenders of freedom on Flight 93, "Let's roll."

(Larry Pratt is Executive Director of Gun Owners of America, a national gun lobby based in Springfield, Va.)

If we the people would exercise our Second Amendemnt rights, we could make the corporate pigs and their government lackies think twice before taking our homes.

Supreme Court rules that P2P networks are responsible for piracy

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8375955/

The free ride for Internet music and movie downloaders may be over. On Monday, the Supreme Court ruled companies that make software which enable free music and movie trading can be held liable for users' illegal activities — if encouraging theft was their intent.

In a unanimous ruling against file swapping services Grokster Ltd. and Streamcast Inc., the court rejected warnings from consumer groups that expanding liability might stunt the growth of new technologies such as Apple's iPod. It was a huge victory for the entertainment industry, which blames illegal file sharing for billions of dollars in lost revenue.

The decision reverses a lower court ruling that the software makers couldn't be sued for user activity over which they had no direct control. The justices said there was enough evidence of unlawful intent for the case to go to trial.
Story continues below ↓ advertisement

File-sharing services are responsible for illegal activity they encourage, Justice David Souter said.

“We hold that one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by the clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties,” Souter wrote for the court.


FREE VIDEO
Launch

• Ruling's impact
Former Grokster CEO Wayne Rosso talks to CNBC about the Supreme Court decision

CNBC
The entertainment industry claims that as much as 90 percent of songs and movies downloaded on the file-sharing networks is done so illegally. Monday’s ruling gives the industry an alternative to the more costly and cumbersome route of going after millions of alleged file-swappers individually.

Hundreds of lawsuits could be filed against similar file-sharing services, former Grokster CEO Wayne Ross told CNBC on Monday. Rosso, now CEO of for-pay service Matchbox, said his firm will announce new licensing deals with the recording industry this week. A slew of other announcements from for-pay file swapping services were expected in response to the ruling.

Two lower courts previously sided with Grokster without holding a trial. They each based their decisions on the 1984 Supreme Court ruling that Sony Corp. could not be sued over consumers who used its VCRs to make illegal copies of movies.

The lower courts reasoned that, like VCRs, the file-sharing software can be used for “substantial” legal purposes, such as giving away free songs or free software. They also said the file-sharing services were not legally responsible because they did not maintain central servers pointing users to copyright material.

RELATED STORIES

* VOTE: What will ruling's impact be?
* 'Legit' file-sharing services growing

But in Monday’s ruling, Souter said lower courts could find the file-sharing services responsible by examining how the software was marketed and whether companies took easily available steps to cut down on illegal use.

Film and music industry supporters cheered the decision as a victory for copyright holders.

"I think the court hit the nail on the head here in focusing on Grokster's wrongful intent," said intellectual property lawyer Christopher S. Ruhland, who until recently represented Disney. "If you intentionally help someone else steal, you ought to be held responsible for that. The message this ruling sends is if your business plan is to make money through copyright infringement, you better change your business plan."

But defenders of file-swapping software said the ruling would immediately stifle innovation.

"This is a very dangerous decision for technology and innovation, and it's probably a big victory for lawyers," said Ed Black, president of the Computer and Communication Industry Association. Page One of a three-page article.

So what does this really do? All the sites have to do is post disclaimers warning people not to pirate. Nothing will really change. And if stuff does change, they'll just move overseas where they're not subject to draconian USA laws.

Eminent Domain is a betrayal

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-062305scotus_lat,0,6924206.story?coll=la-home-headlines

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court gave local governments broad power today to bulldoze homes and other private property to make way for business development, a ruling that could encourage more city-backed plans to replace small stores with big-box retailers.

The 5-4 ruling upheld a plan by officials in a coastal Connecticut town to condemn nine homes of longtime residents that would be replaced with an office complex and a marina.

The public trust has been betrayed by the Supreme Court. They have ruled that local governments may use eminent domain to seize homes and land from people on behalf of developers.

Eminent domain was only supposed to be used for public works such as schools and parks. This ruling hass opened the door for home seizures across the nation. No one will be safe now, as all the developers have to do is convince cities and counties that their projects will bring in jobs and tax revenues.

The Supreme Court said that local governments are more fit to make that judgement than judges. But did this same court not say that states do not have the right to legalize medical marijuana? Woe to you lawyers! You burden people with heavy burdens that you yourselves will not carry!

Supreme Court rules that users of medical marijuana are subject to federal prosecution

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/06/scotus.medical.marijuana/

Supreme Court allows prosecution of medical marijuana

By Bill Mears
CNN Washington Bureau
Tuesday, June 7, 2005 Posted: 7:36 AM EDT (1136 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday ruled doctors can be blocked from prescribing marijuana for patients suffering from pain caused by cancer or other serious illnesses.

In a 6-3 vote, the justices ruled the Bush administration can block the backyard cultivation of pot for personal use, because such use has broader social and financial implications.

"Congress' power to regulate purely activities that are part of an economic 'class of activities' that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce is firmly established," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority.

Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, William Rehnquist and Clarence Thomas dissented. The case took an unusually long time to be resolved, with oral arguments held in November.

The decision means that federal anti-drug laws trump state laws that allow the use of medical marijuana, said CNN senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin. Ten states have such laws.

"If medical marijuana advocates want to get their views successfully presented, they have to go to Congress; they can't go to the states, because it's really the federal government that's in charge here," Toobin said.

At issue was the power of federal government to override state laws on use of "patient pot."

The Controlled Substances Act prevents the cultivation and possession of marijuana, even by people who claim personal "medicinal" use. The government argues its overall anti-drug campaign would be undermined by even limited patient exceptions.

The Drug Enforcement Agency began raids in 2001 against patients using the drug and their caregivers in California, one of 11 states that legalized the use of marijuana for patients under a doctor's care. Among those arrested was Angel Raich, who has brain cancer, and Diane Monson, who grew cannabis in her garden to help alleviate chronic back pain.

A federal appeals court concluded use of medical marijuana was non-commercial, and therefore not subject to congressional oversight of "economic enterprise."

But lawyers for the U.S. Justice Department argued to the Supreme Court that homegrown marijuana represented interstate commerce, because the garden patch weed would affect "overall production" of the weed, much of it imported across American borders by well-financed, often violent drug gangs.

Lawyers for the patient countered with the claim that the marijuana was neither bought nor sold. After California's referendum passed in 1996, "cannabis clubs" sprung up across the state to provide marijuana to patients. They were eventually shut down by the state's attorney general.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2001 that anyone distributing medical marijuana could be prosecuted, despite claims their activity was a "medical activity."

The current case considered by the justices dealt with the broader issue of whether marijuana users could be subject to prosecution.

Along with California, nine states have passed laws permitting marijuana use by patients with a doctor's approval: Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont and Washington. Arizona also has a similar law, but no formal program in place to administer prescription pot.

California's Compassionate Use Act permits patients with a doctor's approval to grow, smoke or acquire the drug for "medical needs."

Users include television host Montel Williams, who uses it to ease pain from multiple sclerosis.

Anti-drug activists say Monday's ruling could encourage abuse of drugs deemed by the government to be narcotics.

"It's a handful of people who want to see not just marijuana, but all drugs legalized," said Calvina Fay of the Drug Free America Foundation.

In its hard-line stance in opposition to medical marijuana, the federal government invoked a larger issue. "The trafficking of drugs finances the work of terror, sustaining terrorists," said President Bush in December 2001. Tough enforcement, the government told the justices, "is central to combating illegal drug possession."

Marijuana users, in their defense, argued, "Since September 11, 2001, Defendants [DEA] have terrorized more than 35 Californians because of medical cannabis." In that state, the issue has become a hot political issue this election year.

The case is Gonzales v. Raich, case no. 03-1454.

Sad, yes. Surprising, no.

Pray for Katie Wernecke

The Wernecke family has set up a blog called Pray for Katie, detailing their struggle to regain custody of their daughter who was ruthlessly torn from them by CPS officials claiming to act "in her best interest" after doctors said she needed radiation treatment for her Hodgkin's Disease, which went against her and her family's wishes.

Now the parents have agreed to go along with the treatment, but the state won't let her go home. I have the feeling they may not see her again before her 18th birthday. I think they're doing this to make an example of the Werneckes and discourage other families from questioning doctors and state officials.

Here's the state DFPS contact page. Drop them a line and let them know how you feel about the way they're treating the Werneckes. I already did. Here is the "honorable" Judge Carl Lewis' email address, clewis@nueces.esc2.net.