WonderfulPessimist.com

According to the Third Court of Appeals in Austin, TX, “authorities had no right to seize more than 440 children in a raid on the splinter group’s compound last month. The Third Court of Appeals in Austin said the state failed to show the youngsters were in any immediate danger, the only grounds in Texas law for taking children from their parents without court action.”

This decision comes in the wake of a Texas raid on a polygamist sect called the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (”Fundamentalist Mormons” or “FLDS” from here on out). The ruling by the appeals court could force the state Child Protective Services to return the children to their parents, though that could be forestalled if the state decides to press the decision to the level of the Texas Supreme Court.

Although most kids worry about things like the school dance and acne treatment, Texas Child Protective Services claimed sexual abuse charges, using them to justify taking away all the kids from the FLDS, even those who were among traditional two-parent families.

“Even if one views the FLDS belief system as creating a danger of sexual abuse by grooming boys to be perpetrators of sexual abuse and raising girls to be victims of sexual abuse … there is no evidence that this danger is ‘immediate’ or ‘urgent’,” the court said. “Evidence that children raised in this particular environment may someday have their physical health and safety threatened is not evidence that the danger is imminent enough to warrant invoking the extreme measure of immediate removal.”

Kinda brings Waco to mind, doesn’t it? Don’t expect Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) to be running for the White House any time soon, after this embarrassment.

Check your life insurance policies, folks, the battle is on!

This week, just before the Thanksgiving holiday, the US Supreme Court agreed to review a Second Amendment case. At issue are the District of Columbia’s anti-gun ownership laws, the strictest in the nation. Yet it puts the highest court in the land at the center of judging the constitutionality of the U.S. Constitution itself, if gun opponents have their way.

Now, thanks to Bush appointees, most suspect that at worst, the Second Amendment will be protected by a 5-4 vote, but don’t be so sure just yet. Keep in mind that the Roberts court is the same one that decided to damage personal property rights and trivialize the real meaning of eminent domain a couple years ago, in essence ruling that private homes could be condemned to make way for shopping malls and parking lots, even in times of peace. In other words, the Roberts court has gotten in wrong before.

As I’ve often said, I don’t own a gun; but I value the freedom of knowing that I have the option. Gun ownership is an individual right because the key phrase is, “the right of the people.” It’s only used a handful of times and in every other instance, whatever rights are enumerated thereafter have been deemed individual, not collective, rights.

Watch out if the high court decided otherwise because if the Supremes can, by fiat, make the Second Amendment null and void, anyone who values freedoms like speech, religion and assembly, to name a few, better beware, because those could be overtuned next!

The federal Supremes may review the constitutionality of the U.S. Constitution in their next session … or at least part of it.

In perhaps one of the most paradoxical questions before the Supreme Court in a long time, by Tuesday the highest judicial body in the nation will decide whether to review a case that is basically being referred to as “Levy vs. the District of Columbia.” Produced and brought forward by libertarian Cato Institute senior fellow Robert Levy, the case seeks to test the constitutionality of the anti-firearm regulations in force in the District of Columbia, the nation’s strictest anti-handgun laws.

Last March, the US Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the Second Amendment, which states, “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.” While gun ownership groups argue that the important modifier there is the right of the “people” - which would classify gun ownership as an individual right, is the cornerstone phrase, gun ownership opponents argue that the key phrases are “A well regulated Militia” and “the security of a free State,” which could be argued toward in interpretation that diminishes the individual gun ownership right, but merely allows for gun ownership in connection with some form of military or state service.

WonderfulPessimist.com is of the intellectual opinion that only oligarchies, dictatorships and other forms of tyrannical government seek to deny the common folk gun ownership, because they fear uprisings and rebellions against their rule. Just and moral governments never need to fear that and therefore allow private ownership of guns, whether it be for hunting, home protection or defending oneself against tyranny. WonderfulPessimist.com also recommends the 1980s movie Red Dawn as required viewing before entering into any discussion on this issue.

That being said, I’ve never really owned a gun. And other than the antique World War II German Luger my father acquired while serving in Germany, which I would like to keep as a remembrance of him and pass down to my kids when the time comes (once I have kids), I have no personal interest in owning a gun.

But I tell you what: I feel a lot safer living in a country where I know I could own one if I chose to, than I’d feel living in a country where I couldn’t, no matter how much it might be needed. After all, what the jet-set liberals who want to pretend the Second Amendment doesn’t exist don’t realize is that life is not always condo hotels and caviar: some folks do live in dangerous areas, and cops are a reactive, not a proactive, force. If I lived in an area where I knew a rapist was at large, for example, I wouldn’t want to be without any way to protect my wife if the fellow tried breaking in to our apartment.

Then again, I’m not exactly planning on going out and buying one any time in the foreseeable future, either. But at least I have the choice. The best thing the Supreme Court could do is to pass on this case and, by so doing, uphold the lower court decision that the DC anti-gun laws are too broad and therefore unconstitutional. While anti-gun advocates would see this as a defeat, it doesn’t give pro-gun forces all they want, either. Sounds like a decent balance.