5 Points from the Heller Opinion

1. Citizens of the United States have an inherent right to self defense, and that forms the basis of the Second Amendment.

2. Scalia destroys the silly argument that only those in a militia can bear arms, but it actually justifies private militias. Scalia says that Congress formed the standing army, and Congress can determine who can and can't be in the standing army and who and who can't bear arms in the standing army. To say that only Congress can form a militia is to say that Congress can regulate who can and can't be in the militia and who can and can't bear arms in the militia. The militia existed before the Constitution, and Congress can only organize it, not form it. If Congress had the power to form it, Congress would have the power to say who can and can't be in the militia and who can and can't bear arms in the militia. One of the purposes of the militia was to prevent tyranny. Congress does not and cannot be given the power to regulate arms in the militia, that is, to take arms away from members of the militia. This has what has been done historically by tyrannies to quash political dissent and the threat of force. Scalia actually indicates that there is a need for private militias. But, importantly, he also indicates that whether you're in a militia or not, you have the same right to keep and bear arms.

3. "to keep and bear Arms" means "to own and carry any weapon, within reason but including handguns, for self-defense." So in anticipation of a conflict where you are attacked, you can keep a firearm in your home and carry one on your person. The opinion indicates that CCW laws are constitutional, but, regardless, the right to carry a firearm is inviolate.

4. If the firearm you keep is to be used in self defense, it does not need to be unloaded or have a trigger lock. Scalia says that laws stating otherwise are silly because it defeats the purpose of having the weapon for self defense in the first place.

5. The opinion indicates that a right is a right is a right. It is not for any branch of the government to declare a right useful or not useful. The court cannot write a right out of the Constitution.

Supremes Disregard Jury, Save Exxon $4.5 Billion

In its Exxon v. Baker decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held that punitive damages that had been awarded against Exxon at trial totaling $5 billion should be reduced to equal the amount of compensatory damages, $507.5 million. The jury's decision to award the $5 billion, which was later lowered to $2.5 billion, was essentially disregarded. The Court indicated that the goal of punitive damages is to deter bad conduct by causing parties to think about what they're doing in light of possible punitive damages. It held that this threat cannot be infinite -- punitives must have some air of predictability, otherwise they violate due process. Besides, the jury's real intent was to punish Exxon just enough, not excessively.

That the Court wants to protect due process is understandable, but the question is if a jury is going to be disregarded, even when the parties were not prejudiced by procedure, why have a jury in the first place? The Court attempted to derive the jury's intent when it did not need to. The jury awarded $5 billion, and that verdict should have stood. If the Court had sent a message that juries will not be usurped, appellate dockets could have been cleared of needless appeals, saving court and taxpayer time, money, and other resources.

Barr Fund Supported Paul Campaign

It appears that the Bob Barr Leadership Fund gave Ron Paul's presidential campaign $1000 last year. I wonder what the Paulians think about that? This site has the link to the filing.

Website? We Don't Need No Stinking Website.

Those advising Governor Daniels in his reelection bid have apparently neglected to maintain Daniels' website, mymanmitch.com. Going there results in an error "The network path was not found." And there seems to be no other Daniels campaign site. The lack of a website suggests both arrogance and inadvertence, and voters, especially the younger ones, will take note. Both Jill Long Thompson and Andrew Horning have erected sites, although both are poorly designed and maintained, and they appear to be taking this election seriously, but Daniels does not. Keep an eye on how many debates the governor consents to. That will be another sign of whether he cares about Hoosier voters.

Indiana Governor's Race Deadlocked

The Indiana governor's race is as tight as it can get. A poll (Excel file) released this week by the Center for Indiana Politics shows the candidates deadlocked. One of the questions asked was would you vote for Mitch Daniels/Jill Long Thompson no matter who else is on the ballot, against Daniels/Long Thompson no matter who else is on the ballot, or might or might not vote for Daniels/Long Thompson no matter who else is on the ballot. Forty percent said that they might or might not vote for Daniels depending on who else was on the ballot, and 52% said the same about Long Thompson. Not much has changed for either candidate since a pre-primary poll was taken where they were tied at 45%-45%.

The poll did not track the Libertarian nominee, Andrew Horning, who is the only other name on the ballot, and it will be interesting to see how many votes Horning delivers for his party and whether those votes come from Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, or independents. In the 2004 election Libertarian Kenn Gividen earned 1.3% to Joe Kernan's 45.5% and Daniels' 53.2%. With the Libertarian Party increasing in size and a big name on the top of the ballot, presidential nominee Bob Barr, Horning may get close to 5% this year, which will make this race all the more fun to watch.