<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Washington Criminal Defense &#187; Supreme Court</title>
	<atom:link href="http://washingtonstatecriminaldefense.com/category/supreme-court/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://washingtonstatecriminaldefense.com</link>
	<description>Seattle Criminal Defense Attorney examines legal topics and news.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 07 Jul 2010 16:22:18 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Right to an Attorney</title>
		<link>http://washingtonstatecriminaldefense.com/right-to-an-attorney/</link>
		<comments>http://washingtonstatecriminaldefense.com/right-to-an-attorney/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 28 Oct 2008 02:47:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Aaron</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Legal News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://washingtonstatecriminaldefense.com/right-to-an-attorney/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[So when does the right attach? In Washington, several courts are still holding arraignment without counsel. No bright line rule here.
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://mtcrimlaw.com/2008/09/01/the-6th-amendment-right-to-counsel/">So when does</a> the right attach? In Washington, several courts are still holding arraignment without counsel. No bright line rule here.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://washingtonstatecriminaldefense.com/right-to-an-attorney/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Booker and Moore</title>
		<link>http://washingtonstatecriminaldefense.com/booker-and-moore/</link>
		<comments>http://washingtonstatecriminaldefense.com/booker-and-moore/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 Oct 2008 16:53:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Aaron</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Legal News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://washingtonstatecriminaldefense.com/booker-and-moore/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Supreme Court provided a short decision in light of Booker, regarding sentencing guidelines. See the full opinion here.  
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Supreme Court provided a short decision in light of Booker, regarding sentencing guidelines. See the full opinion <a href="http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-10689.pdf">here</a>.  </p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://washingtonstatecriminaldefense.com/booker-and-moore/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Supremes Take a Position on Guns</title>
		<link>http://washingtonstatecriminaldefense.com/supremes-take-a-position-on-guns/</link>
		<comments>http://washingtonstatecriminaldefense.com/supremes-take-a-position-on-guns/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Jun 2008 18:29:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Aaron</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Legal News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://washingtonstatecriminaldefense.com/supremes-take-a-position-on-guns/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[From Seattle Weekly&#8217;s Laura Onstot: Washington D.C.&#8217;s hand-gun ban was struck down in a 5-4 decision today by the U.S. Supreme Court. If you&#8217;ve got some time on your hands you can read the entire 157 page opinion here. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority (are you really surprised). But here&#8217;s a general taste of the [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue'; font-size: 13px; line-height: normal">From Seattle Weekly&#8217;s <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS'; font-size: 12px; font-style: italic">Laura Onstot:</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS'; font-size: 12px; font-style: italic"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue'; font-size: 13px; font-style: normal"> </span></span></span>Washington D.C.&#8217;s hand-gun ban was struck down in a 5-4 decision today by the U.S. Supreme Court. If you&#8217;ve got some time on your hands you can read the entire <a href="http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf" target="_blank" style="text-decoration: none">157 page opinion here</a>. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority (are you really surprised). But here&#8217;s a general taste of the reasoning:<br />
<blockquote>It is therefore entirely sensible that the Second Amendment’s prefatory clause announces the purpose for which the right was codified: to prevent elimination of the militia. The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued the ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more important for <strong>self-defense</strong> and <strong>hunting</strong>.   </p></blockquote>
<p>I forget when deer season opens in D.C. but I&#8217;m sure the ability to tote around a major-caliber Mini Glock will help you nail one for the family dinner table, which you are now able to protect from the other Mini Glock-toting criminals just waiting to break down your door.Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the nansy pansies, er&#8230; dissenters. He was joined by David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Steven Breyer. His dissent begins on page 68, but here&#8217;s a taste for everyone who has no intention of wading through the thing.<br />
<blockquote>The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the people of each of the several States to maintain a well-regulated militia. &#8230;. Neither the text of the Amendment nor the arguments advanced by its proponents evidenced the slightest interest in limiting any legislature’s authority to regulate private civilian uses of firearms. Specifically, there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution.   </p></blockquote>
<blockquote><p> </p></blockquote>
<p>  </p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://washingtonstatecriminaldefense.com/supremes-take-a-position-on-guns/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
