Supreme Court Votes In Favor Of Westboro Baptist Church

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled today that the First Amendment protects fundamentalist church members who mount attention-getting, anti-gay protests outside military funerals.

The court voted 8-1 in favor of the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kan. The decision upheld an appeals court ruling that threw out a $5 million judgment to the father of a dead Marine who sued church members after they picketed his son's funeral.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion for the court. Justice Samuel Alito dissented.

"What Westboro said, in the whole context of how and where it chose to say it, is entitled to 'special protection' under the First Amendment," Roberts wrote, "and that protection cannot be overcome by a jury finding that the picketing was outrageous."

Matthew Snyder died in Iraq in 2006 and his body was returned to the United States for burial. Members of the Westboro Baptist Church, who have picketed military funerals for several years, decided to protest outside the Westminster, Md., church where Snyder's funeral was to be held.

The Rev. Fred Phelps and other family members who make up most of the Westboro Baptist Church have picketed many military funerals in their quest to draw attention to their incendiary view that U.S. deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq are God's punishment for the nation's tolerance of homosexuality.

They showed up with their usual signs, including "Thank God for dead soldiers," ''You're Going to Hell," ''God Hates the USA/Thank God for 9/11," and one that combined the U.S. Marine Corps motto, Semper Fi, with a slur against gay men.

The church members drew counter-demonstrators, as well as media coverage and a heavy police presence to maintain order. The result was a spectacle that led to altering the route of the funeral procession.

Several weeks later, Albert Snyder was surfing the Internet for tributes to his son from other soldiers and strangers when he came upon a poem on the church's website that attacked Matthew's parents for the way they brought up their son.

Soon after, Albert Snyder filed a lawsuit accusing the Phelpses of intentionally inflicting emotional distress. He won $11 million at trial, later reduced by a judge to $5 million.

The federal appeals court in Richmond, Va., threw out the verdict and said the Constitution shielded the church members from liability.

Forty-eight states, 42 U.S. senators and veterans groups sided with Snyder, asking the court to shield funerals from the Phelps family's "psychological terrorism."

While distancing themselves from the church's message, media organizations, including The Associated Press, urged the court to side with the Phelps family because of concerns that a victory for Snyder could erode speech rights.

www.2.timesdispatch.com

Maryland's Hand Gun Laws Upheld By Md. Court of Appeals

BALTIMORE - Maryland's highest court has ruled the state's handgun laws are still constitutional despite a 2008 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that gutted gun statutes in D.C.

In an opinion issued Wednesday, the Maryland Court of Appeals affirmed a gun possession charge levied in Prince George's County against Charles F. Williams, Jr.

Williams said the state's gun regulations violated his right to "keep and carry arms" under the Second Amendment, and based his argument in part on the Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller.

The high court in that case said barring a person from possessing a handgun in the home is unconstitutional. Williams, according to the opinion, said the Second Amendment establishes the "right of persons to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes."

Williams also based his argument on another recent gun decision by the Supreme Court in McDonald v. City of Chicago. But the appeals court unanimously rejected his claims and upheld his conviction.

"The defendant wished to extend the Second Amendment beyond what the Supreme Court held in the Heller case -- that a person has an individual right to possess a gun in their home and for self-defense," says Maryland Attorney General Doug Gansler, who argued the state's case before the appellate court last year.

"What this defendant said is, 'You shouldn't convict me for toting a gun on the streets of Prince George's County, because I have an individual right to carry a gun outside of the home,'" Gansler says.

The court specifically said the Maryland law governing Williams' conviction falls outside of the Second Amendment's scope, because it bars having a handgun in public.

The judges also said Williams did not have standing to challenge aspects of the state's gun permit statutes "because he had failed to even apply for a permit to wear, carry, or transport a handgun."

Gansler says no other state has changed its gun laws based on the Supreme Court's decision regarding the District.

www.wtop.com

Supreme Court Rules On Guns Rights Case

Monday June 28, 2010

Today the Supreme Court ruled on McDonald vs. Chicago. It's a case that dealt with Chicago's handgun ban, and whether Second Amendment Rights were being violated.

The court ruled in favor of gun owner rights, ordering a federal appeals court to reconsider the nearly 30-year ban.

It's a ruling that could impact gun laws in almost every state.

"In my opinion, self-defense in America has been validated today," said Lead Plaintiff Otis McDonald.

In a 5 to 4 vote, the Supreme Court settled McDonald vs. Chicago, ruling that it is unconstitutional for state and local governments to restrict individual gun rights.

It's an issue that has been up for national debate since the Heller vs. The District of Columbia Case, which dealt only on a federal level, and was settled 2 years ago.

"We think this is a monumental day," said Wayne LaPierre of the NRA. "It is vindication for the great majority of Americans all across the land that have always believed this was an individual right worth defending."

"Bottom line after this decision, you're gonna see a lot more lawsuits because now any criminal defendant that has a gun charge can raise a second amendment issue," disagreed Paul Helmke with the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

The ruling recognizes an individuals right to bear arms, and Senator Jon Tester has been a leading lawmaker working in favor of today's ruling. Tester, along with Senator Hutchison from Texas, presented a "59-page friend of the court brief" to the Supreme Court last October.

"This is a victory for law-abiding citizens across America," said Tester. "It ensures that folks' second amendment rights are protected regardless of where they live."

While Montana is already home to what many would call favorable gun-right laws, Great Falls gun dealer Kevin Lake is glad to see the case settled.

"I''m very excited to see things go this way," said Lake. "I think its something we've needed for a long time. It is just now that they're finally basically putting it into law. The federal government is finally coming down and saying okay this is an individual right, you can do this, you can own a firearm."

And while gun bans,like the one currently in place in Chicago, are expected to be reversed in the near future, the ruling sends a message that the same gun rights apply to the city as they do in rural states.

"There are a lot of places in Montana, where if you call 911, you maybe an hour or 45 minutes from any help at all," said Lake.

The Supreme Court split down party lines, with the four liberal justices opposing the ruling.

Chief Justice John Roberts voted with the majority.

www.kfbb.com