Second And Fourth Amendment Wins

A number of important stories that otherwise likely would be receiving greater media attention in recent days, have been largely crowded off the front pages of the news because of the stories swirling around the government’s takeover of General Motors, the heated verbal battle between President Obama and former Vice President Cheney, North Korea’s nuclear belligerence, and other important goings on in the world arena.

No, I am not talking about the shameful efforts by the California “Octo-mom” to reap financial gain from her bizarre octo-fertilization.  Nor am I concerned that “John and Kate Plus Eight” are having marital difficulties and their tribulations are not receiving consistently front-page coverage.  I am talking about a pair of federal court decisions in recent days that support our Second and Fourth Amendment rights.

A federal court decision recently in California struck an important blow for both firearms rights and lawful commerce.  The oft-times liberal Ninth Circuit last month upheld a federal district court decision that protected a lawful manufacturer of handguns (Glock) and a lawful, federally-registered distributor of firearms (RSR), from being subjected to a lawsuit by victims of a criminal who shot several people with a handgun. 

Here’s a bit of background on the case.  A crazed gunman shot several people in the Los Angeles, California metro area back in 1999.  Although the criminal shooter is serving a life sentence for his heinous shooting spree, and while neither Glock nor RSR did anything wrong in manufacturing and selling in lawful commerce a handgun that eventually wound up in the gunman’s hands, the victims sued them to try and make them financially liable.  It didn’t work.

A law passed by the Congress and signed by former President Bush in 2005 — the “Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act” (”PLCAA”) — provides protection against specious lawsuits by persons trying to make a firearms retailer or manufacturer liable for the subsequent criminal misuse of a firearm.  Just as manufacturers and sellers of other lawful products (such as automobiles) are not liable for the subsequent misuse of their products, the PLCAA provided similar protection for those involved in the lawful firearms business.  Americans who support not only the right to keep and bear arms, but who support lawful commercial activity in America, have had their rights strengthened by the Ninth Circuit’s decision in this case (Ileto, et al. v. Glock, et al.).

In another matter working its way through the federal court system — this one in support of our Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable government searches and seizures – the Obama Administration is facing sanctions by a federal judge in California who is upset that the Department of Justice has failed to obey an earlier order by the court in a case involving illegal wiretapping by the National Security Agency (NSA) during the prior administration.  The government is refusing to turn over documents to the plaintiffs in a lawsuit that the court ordered be released to them.

While this wiretapping case is not likely to answer the ultimate question of whether a president should be permitted to order a federal agency such as NSA to wiretap citizens’ phone calls and e-mails without warrants (as required by the Fourth Amendment), the federal judge handling the case is moving clearly to at least provide civil relief for persons who have had their private communications improperly surveilled by the government.  This may be a small step for privacy rights and the rule of law, but its an important one.

66 comments Add your comment

jt

June 3rd, 2009
6:50 am

Warrents are no obstacle to the fed. Federal Judges are supplied with rubber stamps. Why go along with this charade that our constitution is even observed.?

RetLTC

June 3rd, 2009
7:46 am

The 4th Amendment is the most important Amendment in the entire document. If the 4th Amendment is abused none of the others can stand. All these 2nd Amendment is the the holy grail freaks need to understand that without the 4th’s protection the feds can kick your doors in and take anything they wish. For any reason. The last administration treated the entire populace like criminals. That was their mindset. Throw a net over us all. All law enforcement agencies in particular need to go go back to the philosophy of protect and serve. Got evidence? Got probable cause? Get a warrant. Until then get the hell off of my telephone. No more “no knock” warrants either. This us against them attitude with we the people looked at as the enemy has got to stop. If it doesn’t police forces will just become gangs of thugs looking to destroy their perceived enemies…us. Don’t believe it? Ask Catherine Johnson. Better yet her family, since she can’t answer for herself.

bob

June 3rd, 2009
7:55 am

ret, can you cite one example of having a net thrown over you ? The events such as no knocks were around before Bush, if you really thought the 4 amendment was so special you would know that before Bush came along the cops could just seize money on the spot from a suspect under forfeiture laws. Bush had nothing to do with the above.

jekyllover

June 3rd, 2009
8:47 am

A Freshman student in English can understand that the Second Amendment applies to the establishment of a militia NOT to an individual right to tote a rod. Read the Preamble to the Constitution and see if you believe that each individual in the U.S. has the right to establish a Constitution. Or, you might read the Fifth Amendmentt, Barr, and note the word “people” was not the word our early leaders employed when they wanted to provide for individual rights. Barr, the NRA, and their supporters are a major reason we have more than 30, 000 gun deaths every year in the U.S. That number is overwhelmingly more than any other industrialized nation and about 10 times more each year than occurred in the tragedy of 9-11. As an attorney, Barr should make an effort to understand our Constitution and its amendments.

StJ

June 3rd, 2009
9:05 am

The Heller vs. DC case reaffirmed without a doubt that the 2nd Amendment IS an individual right, as are many others written into the Constitution. This document was intended to limit the power of the federal government, but lately the government has ignored the Constitution and does whatever it damn well pleases.

jt

June 3rd, 2009
9:08 am

“without the 4th’s protection the feds can kick your doors in and take anything they wish.”

As opposed to “With” this protection?

“The last administration treated the entire populace like criminals.”

As opposed to “this” administration?

LOLO

June 3rd, 2009
9:11 am

Jekyllover, I think you need to read last year’s Supreme Court majority opinion from Justice Scalia outlining with great historical context and detail the intent of the 2nd amendment before you throw out such unsubstantiated statements.

Charlie

June 3rd, 2009
9:15 am

“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.”
—Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, Dec. 20, 1787, in Papers of
Jefferson, ed. Boyd et al.

Turd Ferguson

June 3rd, 2009
9:16 am

There are not gun deaths…there are however murders occuring via the use of a gun…or ball-bat, knife, sword, tree limb etc. The individual has every RIGHT to carry a weapon provided a license etc has been obtained. When people beat one another to death with their fists should we then chop off their hands for said offense.

Too bad Dems…

Charlie

June 3rd, 2009
9:16 am

“[The Second Amendment] has long been regarded as the ‘true palladium of liberty.’”
—Nordyke v. King, Majority opinion of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

Duh

June 3rd, 2009
9:17 am

Jekyl, your ignorance is showing. Sure, let’s make guns illegal so nobody will have them because we all know that the criminals using them will certainly stop once they are illegal. Hey, it works with illegal drugs right? Oh snap!

John

June 3rd, 2009
9:18 am

Huh?? “if you really thought the 4 amendment was so special you would know that before Bush came along the cops could just seize money on the spot from a suspect under forfeiture laws” Ummm…they still do that now. If you are found with a large amount of money on you and you can’t prove where it came from…..say bye-bye. I work at an airport…and talking to the Airport PD…they site numerous occasions of money confiscation. Most of the time no one will even try and reclaim the money.

GoGators

June 3rd, 2009
9:27 am

Hey jekyllover, you’re taking it out of context. The Bill of Rights was established to protect the individual. To say the others apply to individuals and the 2nd does not, is to show your lack of knowledge on the situation as a whole.

Fred

June 3rd, 2009
9:50 am

The Ron Paul supporter kept his money at the airport. Watch FreedomWatch on YouTube from a month or so ago. Dude kept his composure, repeatedly asked whether he was legally obligated to answer where the money came from, and eventually they had to let him go. The whole thing was a travesty. A travesty of a mockery of a mockery of a sham. It’s not illegal to carry money around in this country and they can’t just confiscate it. Stand up for your self.

gatorman770

June 3rd, 2009
10:04 am

Jekyllover – according to a recent a recent USA Today survey you be wrong: 96% said the 2nd Amendment give indiviuals the right to bear arms
3% said no (That be you – suggest your go back to school)
1% was Undecided

Che was a homicidal maniac

June 3rd, 2009
10:14 am

Barrack Hussein Obama is a Muslim.

Barack Hussein Obama: US “one of the largest Muslim countries in the world”

It is important to note that “if you actually took the number of Muslim Americans, we’d be one of the largest Muslim countries in the world”.

So says President Barack Obama. Or I should say: Barack Hussein Obama.

That’s right: Barack Hussein Obama. Say it proud. Say it out loud. The middle moniker that dared not speak its name during the election campaign is now front and centre of the US president’s attempt to woo the Muslim world, the theme of his visits to Riyadh on Wednesday and Cairo on Thursday.

Petrified of the potential political fallout of being branded a Muslim, Candidate Obama – a practicing Christian – never used the name “Hussein” and its use was frowned upon as a forbidden code for the nutty accusation that he was some kind of Islamic Manchurian candidate.

No more. To say Barack Hussein Obama – BHO for short – now appears to be the height of political correctness.

As I argue in this analysis for the Telegraph dead tree edition, Obama is seeking to return to a Middle East policy based on realism – buttressed by the bona fides of his own multi-cultural (including Muslim) background.

In Strasbourg two months ago, the president tried out his full name. Days later in Ankara, he was introduced to the Turkish parliament by his full name.

As ABC’s Jake Tapper and Sunlen Miller astutely outline here, the Obama administration is embracing the new president’s inner Muslim, as it were. Deputy national security adviser stated that Obama had “experienced Islam on three continents…growing up in Indonesia, having a Muslim father — obviously Muslim Americans [are] a key part of Illinois and Chicago”.

So that’s once, twice, three times a Muslim?

Just in case the Arab world hasn’t yet got this message of inbuilt tolerance, Mr Obama himself has gone a step further. In an interview with France’s Canal Plus released on Tuesday evening, he suggested that the United States might be a Muslim country.

Obama said he wanted to “create a better dialogue so that the Muslim world understands more effectively how the United States but also how the West thinks about many of these difficult issues like terrorism, like democracy, to discuss the framework for what’s happened in Iraq and Afghanistan and our outreach to Iran, and also how we view the prospects for peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians”.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/toby_harnden/blog/2009/06/03/barack_hussein_obama_us_one_of_the_largest_muslim_countries_in_the_world

williebkind

June 3rd, 2009
10:17 am

jekylover: You profess to be wise thus became a fool!! FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS!

RetLTC

June 3rd, 2009
10:21 am

bob…can you prove they haven’t? But just for your info, DOJ has admitted that “mistakes” have been made due to basically lack of oversight. The surveillance program has been used for purposes not intended according to DOJ. All inadvertent of course. LMAO! Nice try though bob. Good Bush apologist talking point.

RetLTC

June 3rd, 2009
10:22 am

The Bushies set the precedent jt.

williebkind

June 3rd, 2009
10:24 am

Che was a homicidal maniac: Great comments! I guess prayer rugs will be the next craze across America supported by the biased progessive media–which way is EAST.

Che was a homicidal maniac

June 3rd, 2009
10:26 am

williebkind, it should come to no surprise that Obama Hussien is a muslim. He attended a racist anti-Israel church for 20 years, he apologizes to muslims even though it was muslims who bombed America first. I mean, all one has to do is connect the dots.

RetLTC

June 3rd, 2009
10:29 am

And yes no knock warrants have been around for years, but in this day and time with all the home invasions with the perps screaming police as they burst through the doors it is impossible to seperate the bad guys from the good. Anybody burst through someone,s door in the wee hours should expect to be met with force. It’s just not worth it anymore. Just sit on the house, wait for the target to come out…which he will, and take him down with minimal hoopla. Of course we all know that is just too demanding for a law enforcement agency to do. They much prefer the cowboys and indians way that from time to time leads to unnecessary death on both sides. Ask Catherine Johnson. Oh, you can’t can you?

williebkind

June 3rd, 2009
10:29 am

RetLTC: The DOJ is not a very good source to rely upon. Especially now! I guess I will have to go buy me a pair of jack boots, shave my head, and brandish a bat to get my man into office.

Turd Ferguson

June 3rd, 2009
10:30 am

Hussein is a racist muslim.

Now of course the mollycodders on the left will scream and wet themselves at such an HONEST statement. However, fact is fact.

Copyleft

June 3rd, 2009
10:32 am

Obama is seeking to return to a Middle East policy based on realism – buttressed by the bona fides of his own multi-cultural (including Muslim) background.

Gosh, wouldn’t that be awful? (grin) Sounds almost… AMERICAN!

Che was a homicidal maniac

June 3rd, 2009
10:34 am

Copyleft once again misses the entire point. Back to the short bus with you, Copyleft.

Defense

June 3rd, 2009
10:36 am

The 4th amendment is routinely abused or ignored by police officers, DAs and even judges, in an effort to prosecute and win 100% of cases, presumably to get a promotion, bonus or other job. Police have no problem in making up allegations to justify warrants or illegal searches. The Constitution isn’t really an issue for this group.

Charlie

June 3rd, 2009
10:41 am

1911guy

June 3rd, 2009
10:48 am

Jekyllover,
By your logic the privilege of automobile use and ownership should be revoked. The difference is in the word privilege. Automobile use is a privilege and not a right guaranteed by the US constitution like gun ownership. Which has been well established and repeatedly affirmed.

williebkind

June 3rd, 2009
10:52 am

Hey! Do you think we can replace the stars in the flag with crescent moons?

RetLTC

June 3rd, 2009
10:53 am

It would probably fit right in with your neo-nazi mentality williebkind. Congratulations. Oh…don’t forget the tatoos you’ll need them to better fit in with others of your ilk.

Sammy

June 3rd, 2009
10:55 am

williebkind is really Willie B.

Copyleft

June 3rd, 2009
10:55 am

Oh, I got the “point,” Maniac… and as usual, it was just beyond your grasp.

The hysterical-ranting party is OVER. The paranoid cries of “Obama’s a Muslim!” were tried, and they failed. It was absurd nonsense than, and it’s ignorant nonsense now. Only idiots are still trying to pitch that loser of an attack.

You know… like the idiots, loons, and losers who frequent FreeRepublic, TownHall, etc.? THOSE losers. It’s amazing how bitterly they cling to tactics that have already failed them….

williebkind

June 3rd, 2009
11:05 am

I think the 4th ammendment has been abused by police and more so by DA’s. It is a tough job prosecuting criminals being protected by the left all the time.

Except for children, the unborn, and anyone not associated with the liberal agenda, the progressive liberals such as the ACLU defends the most outrageous against American values and traditions reading lines out of the constitution that is not there nor intended to be there.

That is why the ACLU and the progressives uses the judicial branch, as stated by supreme court justice nominee Sotomayor to make law and policy.

Sotomayor, it’s reported that you don’t speak English, Is this true?

Eeez not true.

Prove it by using these 3 words in a sentence, green, yellow, and pink.

Hmmmmmmm, Deh telephone she went green, green, green, so I pink it up an say yellow.

Just funning!!!

williebkind

June 3rd, 2009
11:11 am

RetLTC: Remember the Nazis created a close relationship with the muslims and the muslims loved the Nazis. WWII

SaveOurRepublic

June 3rd, 2009
11:22 am

jt – Correct you are…the entire warrant issuance process needs mass overhaul.

jekyllover – absolutely incorrect. The entire Bill of Rights were written for the protection of the American people (en-masse & for the individual) against a tyrannical & over-reaching government. By limiting the RTK&BA to a “militia”, the implication is this is/for a state assembled/maintained militia. The 2nd Amendment was meant for the people/individual NOT the state/government!

Dave R

June 3rd, 2009
11:25 am

Obviously, jekyllover needs to talk to smarter freshmen when discussing the U.S. Constitution.

English 101 shows us that there is one thing missing from jekyllover’s analysis because the implied word is missing from the 2nd Amendment: the word being “individual”. The second thing missing from Jekyllover’s analysis is context.

The context was that (further in the Constitution) there was a provision for Congress to raise funds for a future army if needed. The Founders didn’t envision needing a standing army all the time, so they inserted the “militia” provision into the 2nd amendment. It allowed the INDIVIDUAL to keep and bear arms without infringement so that he or she could defend their property from those who would take it through the use of force, and also allowed for the forming of a militia if needed to defend the country in the future.

Either way, the INDIVIDUAL was guaranteed to right to keep and bear arms by the 2nd Amendment, despite when some liberals try their torturous twisting of the simple meanings implied in the Constitution.

RetLTC

June 3rd, 2009
11:26 am

Just what are American values williebkind? Since America is made up of many diverse groups of AMERICANS, it might be pretty hard to define. And since you seem to be among that 20% crowd, your sample can’t be considered even close to representative. Give it a try though. I’m sure it will be entertaining. And after you define that one, how about defining American culture. I’m sure your definition of that one will be hilarious.

RetLTC

June 3rd, 2009
11:28 am

And they were also guaranteed the freedom to be secure in their own homes too Dave R. And that includes the freedom from illegal warrantless surveillance.

Che was a homicidal maniac

June 3rd, 2009
11:31 am

Copyleft, and once again you don’t read what’s posted. You continue to see a headline and forget to read just where it came from.

ABC and UK TIMES reported this. Take it up with them scum bag.

BigMike

June 3rd, 2009
11:38 am

Look carefully at the Judiscial system, and you will see the first five letters spell Judis, a system of questionable standards. Law at it’s highest level is more of an opinion, and old rulings rather than factual and more up to date standard’s. Ex: Roe vs Wade where it say’s a woman and her alone has that right to make a choice wether to abort, or not to abort is so outdated. Look we are in a time where people are crazy, and I don’t mean that as a euphomism, Literally crazy! People on the “right”, and people on the “left” have no clue, isn’t it time we become a nation of independant thinkers and learn how beyond e-mails, texting and all other giggets learn to become human again. Not for Fox, CNN, or MSNBC, BUT FOR OUR SANITY AND OUR CHILDRENS FUTURE. The 4th amendment which clearly every DA and ADA in America is abusing, and costing cops there jobs while they cleverly hide behind the ‘Law’. Become a self thinker, and you won’t end up on this sight like WillieBkind. Upset and mad as hell at Anyone who isnt down with Rush Limbaugh, and who doesn’t have blond hair and Blue eyes.

williebkind

June 3rd, 2009
11:39 am

RetLTC: I see you do not have any idea of what are Amerian Values. You have been diluted with progressive thinking that the constitution is a living document and each divesity group has it own interpretation of it.

I will keep it simple for you ” God, country, and apple pie”! Is that entertaining enough for you?

Only your socialists have pointed out the diversity of America, American is an American. You want to separate and divide to enforce your socialist values. You announce numbers when they favor your agenda wether they be fact or fiction. You are correct about one thing! When liberals are in charge it is a scary entertainment–although bad for the country.

Dave R

June 3rd, 2009
11:47 am

And in that regard, you and I are on the same page for the first time, RetLTC.

Although my Constitutional chops would probably think that there are less reasons for the state to violate the 4th amendment than you might.

Dave R

June 3rd, 2009
11:48 am

I also think it is a shame that you use a local Atlanta PD abuse of this issue and try to assign it to a Federal problem or to the Bush Administration.

Californication

June 3rd, 2009
12:04 pm

Please turn in all your guns and rifles, only guvment sheeple are aloud to have fire arms.

williebkind

June 3rd, 2009
12:20 pm

BigMIke: You brought up Rush Limbaugh! That means you lost the argument. As far as everyone thinking for themselves that would put progressive liberals out of office. Remember liberals you must stand by your computer and get he blog comments and briefings from the DNC.

You made another good attempt to divide and separate to win your point. However I am glad to be WillieBkind and not Eric Holder! I know he is a racist. He does hate everything blond and blue eyed.

Did you rewrite history again? I thought the Normadic and Germanic peoples were blue eyed and blond haired. Oh well, I am just a product of public schools.

RetLTC

June 3rd, 2009
12:45 pm

Just as I thought williebkind. You can’t even define what you THINK are American values. But congratulations. You did avoid walking into the ambush that awaited you had you given your 20%er definition.

williebkind

June 3rd, 2009
1:32 pm

RetLTC: Since I am a product of public schools I borrowed the words but the values, I have those deep within.

American values are conservative values mostly and committed to uniting the American people around the vision of our Founding Fathers.

Centuries ago, our Founders boldly proclaimed to the world a distinctly American faith in democracy; a faith rooted in the self-evident truths that “all men are created equal and endowed by their CREATOR with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” I believe these liberties need to be upheld and cherished.

These value serves to remind the public of the conservative principles that are so fundamental to the survival of our nation and to bring support and ideas to policy makers and empower our elected officials to have the support they need to do what is right, noble and good.

My values is a vision of a nation that embraces life, marriage, family, faith, and freedom. I am devoted in having streets without bullets, schools that prepare our children for success, laws that protect our people and a government that serves its citizens and not the reverse.

Sadly but true, the culture of progessive thinking is promoted in our media, courts and legislatures. For example, millions of unborn children have been killed over the last 30 years as a result of progressive’s selfishness, justified under the euphemisms of choice and privacy.

My American values are deeply committed to defending life, TRADITIONAL marriage and equipping our children with the values necessary to stand against liberal education and cultural forces that our Founding Fathers sought to create. Amen.

Copyleft

June 3rd, 2009
2:09 pm

Your ideals are very nice, WillieB, but you’re wrong in claiming that they’re American values.

American values are LIBERAL values–always have been, always will be, despite the reactionaries’ best efforts to get us back to blind faith and worship of a god-king. (Witness the past eight years, for example.)

American values are about defending FREEDOM, not “tradition.” They’re about extending our individual freedoms to EVERYONE, not just the wealthy, the white, or the heterosexual. To be an American means that every other citizen–yes, even the blacks and gays and Hispanics–is your equal and deserves equal treatment under the law, equal voice in our government, and equal opportunity to succeed.

American values–and by that, I mean liberal values–recognize that even our country, great as it is, can always improve and do better. It recognizes the mistakes of the past, including the errors and compromises of the Founding Fathers themselves (as they themselves readily admitted), and strives to do better today that we did yesterday.

The culture of the Religious Right, fused to a greedy and selfish culture of trickle-down economic fanatacism, has done its best to derail the American (i.e., LIBERAL) ideals of our nation for the past few decades. Thankfully, they’ve been discredited and cast aside, so we can return to the LIBERAL ideals that are central and essential to our nation’s survival.

Dave R

June 3rd, 2009
3:12 pm

So then, copylefty, American ideals are to steal from those who have by the force of government and give what you steal to those that have not earned it? Are those the American values you speak of?

Are American values those that artificially put those that do not achieve ahead of those that do so on their own? Are those the American values of which you speak?

Are the American values you speak of those that say that not only are we created equal, but that we will remain equal even if we achieve something that others do not? Those American values?

Are liberal values of “defending freedom” not defending ALL freedom, whether social or economic? Or are liberal values just there to defend the freedoms you pick and choose to defend?

How can one treat everyone as being equal, when you insist on belittling and attacking some as “greedy” or “selfish”. Are these the American values you prize so highly, copylefty?