Advertisements
Home

Miami Beach Police Detain Legal Open Carriers, Chill First Amendment

Leave a comment

H/T AmmoLand.

The city of Miami Beach police have always been pretty badge heavy and enjoyed pushing people around.

 

Arizona -(Ammoland.com)- On June 24, at about 10 a.m. citizens peacefully openly and legally carrying holstered pistols were detained by police for two hours. The police closed the pier where the Second Amendment activists were fishing.

The legal open carriers were eventually released and allowed to continue their activities. However, police remained at the scene and actively discouraged other members of the public from making contact with the Second Amendment activists. From miamiherald.com:

Police reopened the pier, but left a couple of officers there and stated, “We are encouraging visitors to use other portions of South Pointe Park.”

The men cited Florida Statute 790.25(3), the (h) subsection of which allows openly carrying a gun by “person engaged in fishing, camping, or lawful hunting or going to or returning from a fishing, camping, or lawful hunting expedition.” They came prepared with a print out of the statute.

The action is almost certain to result in a lawsuit or lawsuits against Miami Beach for numerous violations of Constitutional rights.  From local10.com:

Eric Friday, general counsel for Florida Carry, said the men were held by police for two hours and had guns drawn on them.

“Overreaction would be an understatement, but I do believe they overreacted,” Friday said.

Friday said his group planned to take legal action against the city for how the police handled the situation.

If you look at the image from  local10.com, you can see that at least one Second Amendment activist was wearing a body camera. He appears to be in restraints.

The group associated with the event, Florida Carry, is a well managed resourceful, and experienced Second Amendment group. They have won several settlements in Florida courts. It is likely that more than one video camera was recording events. Florida Carry had this comment on its Facebook page:

The illegal attack on our members by the Miami Beach PD is a developing incident. We are pouring every necessary resource in to this incident.

Most of the news coverage of the police action says the Second Amendment activists were “briefly detained”. Two hours is not “briefly detained”. There is considerable court precedent about the definition of “briefly detained”. It is less than 10-20 minutes.

In this case, there was no probable cause. There was no reasonable suspicion. Open carry demonstrations while fishing have been ongoing in Florida for several years, and have been widely publicized.

The use of police resources to actively persuade members of the public to avoid contact with open carriers is an important twist to this event .

Open carry demonstrations are powerful, protected, symbolic speech. The stated purpose of the demonstration was to exercise First Amendment rights to protect and advance Second Amendment rights.

The Miami Beach Police used their police power to directly chill the exercise of the First Amendment, without any legal reason to do so.

This will not end well for Miami Beach.

Florida remains one of the five states where open carry of pistols is generally prohibited in public by state law. There are a few exceptions, such as open carry while camping or fishing or while in transit to and from such activities.

General open carry, is legal in 45 states. It has been stalled in the Florida legislature for the last few years through underhanded defections by Republicans and through machinations of the Republican leadership.  Those Republicans tend to lose their seats.

Eventually, I expect open carry to pass in Florida. There is no valid reason for it to be illegal.

There is one invalid reason. Open carry makes a loud, clear, political statement: the Second Amendment is real, and it means something.

Those who wish a disarmed population find that statement insufferable.

©2018 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.

Link to Gun Watch

Advertisements

FL GOVERNOR RICK SCOTT SIGNS PASTOR PROTECTION ACT

1 Comment

This is from BarbWire.

Thank-you Governor Rick Scott for standing up for Christians.

Florida Governor Rick Scott signs the Pastor Protection Act into law and the Georgia legislature has passed a similar law in that state. Now it is waiting for the Governor’s signature.

Mat Staver: Matt, in Florida the House and Senate passed this Pastor Protection Act. I was there and spoke at a rally outside of the House when they were actually deliberating and just passed it, and it moved over to the Senate, that same afternoon when I was there. Now it has gone to the Florida Governor’s desk and he has signed this into law. It’s called the Pastor Protection Act and it protects pastors and churches and other religious organizations from being forced to participate in a same-sex wedding ceremony or being forced to allow their facilities to be used for such ceremonies.

Matt Barber: Yea…this is good news. Anybody who believes in the Constitution, who supports the First Amendment, should support these religious freedom bills. Now, these pastor protection bills, I mean these are no-brainers. But the problem is, that we have counter-constitutional leftists and secularists attacking the First Amendment, attacking religious liberty. The First Amendment alone should be enough to protect pastors…

The True Face of Political Correctness | 12 Things That Drive Conservatives NUTS!

Leave a comment

This is from Allen West Republic.

political-correctness_o_1377737

 

1.  The rainbow flag that symbolizes the hate and intolerance of the liberal to my own conservative viewpoint. 

  • What you do in your bedroom is YOUR business, having it continually shoved down our throats in everything we see and do makes it ours too.

rainbow-flag

2. That New Black Panther Party is a macro aggression. They are in your face, militaristic, and threaten violence to others.

BlackPanthers_2008

3.  Being stereotyped as a racists just because I disagree with the POTUS.

obama

 

4.  Being told that I cannot vote based on my moral and religious choices while liberals are allowed to vote their secular worldly choices.

Vote-300x219

5.  Being told that my religious freedom only exists within the walls of the church when the First Amendment says otherwise and is continuously misinterpreted by liberals.

First Amendment

6.  An activist Supreme Court that legislates from the bench and ignores its constitutional role.

SCOTUS

7.  A POTUS who came to rule and not to serve, looking for ways to subvert and bypass Congress and the courts.

10463928_671935422882689_5317091186495106418_n

8.  Career politicians who serve only themselves and their money masters, making the argument for term limits.

Boehner Pelosi Deal for Amnesty

9.  Being told that the Second Amendment only allows hunting weapons, when it was viewed as a wedge against abusive government by our founding fathers.

untitledbb

10.  An over reaching Federal government limiting States and individuals rights in the name of the common good (socialism).

Ronald Reagan and Socialism Quote

11.  An un-elected and unaccountable EPA setting unrealistic limits on our nation, following a political agenda, without factual basis, and a disregard of the costs.

http://comicallyincorrect.com/

12.  A runaway IRS being used as a political arm of the Democrat Party in collusion with the DOJ and the FEC.

IRS and Obama

 


THIS ARTICLE COMPOSED BY TANYA GRIMSLEY AND PAUL CLARK

When Tolerance becomes a one way street it leads to cultural suicide. The only tolerance the progressive, leftist liberals know is when it is totally beneficial to them. We are not allowed to have our own point of views. They demand that we conform.

1972491_707898939286337_3269218997613611499_n

OBAMA RIPS FOX: ‘WE’RE GOING TO HAVE TO CHANGE HOW THE MEDIA REPORTS’

2 Comments

This is from Breitbarts Big Government.

The GOP has set on the sidelines and allowed Obama to usurp power and now he wants to become a dictator.

Obama needs to be stopped before he shuts down the First Amendment.

 

For going on seven years we have learned three things about President Obama: 1) He loves the poor so much he continues to create more of them. 2) He loves the poor so much he does everything in his power to keep them poor. 3) He doesn’t see the opposition as loyal, but as bad players — his enemy. This is especially true of Fox News, which Obama ripped as anti-poor bigots during a Wednesday afternoon summit on poverty.

We’re used to this Obama, the forever-partisan who has never seen himself as president of all the people but only of those who worship him.

What was most revealing about the president’s comments was his expressed desire to “change how the media reports.”

Speaking of Fox News, the poor, and the way GOP leaders think, Obama said, [W]e’re going to have to change how our body politic thinks, which means we’re going to have to change how the media reports on these issues.”

Here is the full transcript:

I think that the effort to suggest that the poor are sponges, leeches, don’t want to work, are lazy, are undeserving, got traction. And look, it’s still being propagated. I have to say that if you watch Fox News on a regular basis, it is a constant venue. They will find folks who make me mad. I don’t know where they find them. They’re all like, “I don’t want to work. I just want a free Obama Phone, or whatever.” And that becomes an entire narrative that gets worked up. And very rarely do you hear an interview of a waitress, which is much more typical — who is raising a couple of kids and doing everything right but still can’t pay the bills.

And so, if we’re going to change how

Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) 40% and Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) 54%
 think, we’re going to have to change how our body politic thinks, which means we’re going to have to change how the media reports on these issues, and how people’s impressions of what it’s like to struggle in this economy looks like. And how budgets connect to that. And that’s a hard process because that requires a much broader conversation than typically we have on the nightly news.

After seven failed years, to watch Obama sit there and discuss the poor as though he is part of the solution and not the problem, is laughable.

And let’s not forget that Obama knows nothing about poverty. He has lived a privileged life.

Obama attended prep schools as a child, lived with his well-to-do grandparents in Honolulu as a teen, where he attended Panahou, a fancy private school. Both of his grandparents were well educated; she even worked as the vice president of a bank. For a time, Obama  had a nanny! From there Obama attended Occidental College in California, was well off enough to visit Pakistan for 3 weeks; he then attended two of the most prestigious colleges in the country: Columbia and Harvard.

The closest Obama has ever come to experiencing anything close to poverty was during his time as a community organizer in Chicago. And in that dynamic, the poor were just pawns for Obama to manipulate to achieve his political ambitions.

Obama knows nothing of struggle, or what life is like for those who do.  And after 7 years of his failed economic policies, we also know he doesn’t give a damn enough about the poor to change his policies in a way that might actually help them.

Obama likes poor people fine — he likes them dependent on the government.

He also likes the news media to do what it’s told.

Gun Shop’s Christmas Sign Has Liberals FURIOUS [PHOTO]

Leave a comment

This is from Conservative Tribune.

Liberals are in favor of the First Amendment only when the speechs favors their position.

 

We’ve shared stories of many billboards that seem to make liberals go bonkers. Isn’t it funny how they’re the first to shout “First Amendment!” and “free speech!” but only if it falls within their agenda?

This latest billboard, which uses First Amendment rights to show support for the Second Amendment is no exception. Liberals all over the city of Chico, Cali. are going absolutely bananas over it.

The hilarious billboard depicts Santa Claus sporting a high-end AR-15 rifle with the message, “We build AR’s for Santa” right next to it. It’s got to be one of the best billboards we’ve seen in a while. (H/TTheBlaze)

screenshot.6

The co-owner of Down Range Indoor Training Center, Steve Dyke, thought the billboard was hilarious and clever – and rightfully so. “We’re right next to the freeway, so we have to do something to catch people’s eye,” he told local reporters.

One liberal who was steaming over the sign  said, “The idea of this symbol of joy and giving holding an assault rifle it’s just so contradictory. You almost don’t know what to do with it.”

Another liberal mother told the same reporter, “I just don’t think I would like my son to see Santa holding a gun and having to explain to him that’s usually not what’s Santa’s holding…it’s presents.”

But Dyke had the perfect counter to that statement when he said, “Some people get toys and stuff like that for Christmas,” he told KOVR. “[W]hen I was growing up, I got guns from Santa Claus.”

As Dyke said, it’s all about where you come from and how you grow up. Liberals freak out at the mere sight of a gun and call it “scary” – even if it’s on a billboard canvas.

Anti-gun liberals are usually “scared” of guns based on looks alone and the fact that they’ve never held one or used one before at a target range.

But Dyke said that a majority of the feedback he’s received so far is positive.

One customer, Bob Marshall, said it’s all about First and Second Amendment rights. “I believe in it fully,” Marshall stated.

Dyke told reporters there is no chance it’s coming down – it’s been a huge promotional tool for the store during the holidays.

Apparently they have some ideas for the Easter Bunny and Cupid down the line, so stay tuned.

Judge Blasts School Board & Cop over Unlawful Arrest & Silencing of Concerned Father

1 Comment

This is from Freedom OutPost.

Finally a reasonable ruling from the courts.

I hope William Baer  sues the crap out of everyone involved in his arrest.

 

If you recall, back in May, William Baer was arrested after voicing opposition to a school board meeting about a controversial book by Jodi Picoult titled Nineteen Minutes, a story about a school shooting that contained pornographic content. It was also required reading for ninth graders. Now a New Hampshire 4th Circuit Court of Appeals judge has blasted the school board for “silencing” him and arresting him, which was a violation of Mr. Baer’s free speech.

Bob Unruh at WND reports:

In dismissing charges against Baer, Judge James M. Carroll said the court “does agree with the defendant’s argument that, often in an official meeting or at the court, for that matter, individuals, from time to time, may be disruptive, but the disruptiveness should not be cause for an arrest in the first instance.”

“The sequence of the arrest actions cause pause by the court as to the chilling, if not silencing of a citizen by the state, for actions which do not warrant a criminal arrest nor conviction. The court finds that the actions for ‘order’ by the state do not ‘balance,’ in the facts of this particular case, the speech rights of the defendant.”

The court also said that Mr. Baer didn’t purposely cause a breach of the peace, and furthermore dismissed the claim that Baer refused to comply with a lawful order of a peace officer.

“The court questions the constitutionality of the state’s action in the sequence as memorialized by the deposition,” the judge wrote.

In other words, the peace officer should have known better and he was actually the one in violation of the law, not Mr. Baer.

The judge also pointed out that the meeting was already completed and that there was no way Mr. Baer had caused a problem for the board or those in attendance.

“The court does not find the actions of the defendant to be criminal in nature which is necessary in the ordering of restrictions on a citizen’s liberties in First Amendment considerations,” the judge concluded. “The court finds that the defendant’s action never created a breach of peace sustaining a criminal complaint.”

Baer says that in the time since his unlawful arrest, his and his family’s lives “have been in disarray.” According to Baer, the Gilford Police Department, the school board and the state of New Hampshire have targeted him like a common criminal, but he is happy with the judge’s decision in the case.

“I am obviously pleased that all charges have been dismissed,” Baer said. “Belknap County Judge James Carroll showed me there still is some justice in our system.”

Instead of prosecutors taking the time and knowing the law and dismissing the case out of hand, they took the months that led up to the hearing to continue their pursuit of Mr. Baer.

“And what about the incident that gave rise to all this?” he asked rhetorically. “That is, Gilford High School requiring my 9th-grade daughter to read material that is unfit to print in virtually any newspaper in the country. If someone were handing out this material right in front of the classroom in which students were reading the text, he would most likely be arrested, prosecuted, and convicted for distribution of pornographic material to a minor. What about a school system which cannot ensure that proper notice be given to parents of a child mandated to read such material due to the school’s ‘oversight?’ What would you think if you found out that last year, when the book was also required reading, the school administration and teacher made the same ‘mistake’ and also failed to provide notice?” he said.

Baer then theorized, “What about the chilling effect on First Amendment guaranteed speech that these arrests and prosecutions have on our society regardless of the outcome? How many people will avoid speaking publicly knowing they can easily receive the same treatment I did, and likely worse?”

To recount what happened, Lily Dane reported:

School officials say that the book contains important themes, but parents say that message is overshadowed by what some call pornographic content on one page.

The book was assigned to students last Monday, but the school failed to give parents of freshmen students notice of the sexually explicit content in the novel. One page of the book contains a graphic description of rough sex between two teenagers.

Some parents are outraged, and attended a school board meeting to make their feelings known.

William Baer, whose 14-year old daughter is a student at the school, was one of the parents who spoke out at the meeting. He was promptly arrested for doing so.

Dane cited a section of the book that was clearly pornographic and validates exactly what Mr. Baer stated above. Yet, the concerned parent is the one forced to defend himself while the school board and those that put this filth in the hands of children are left unscatched, except by the words of and appeals court judge. At least they got that!

Even Mr. Baer’s 14-year-old daughter took a shot at the school board for their brazen, unlawful behavior. I’d say dad taught her well!

I would hope that Mr. Baer would pursue a lawsuit not only against the arresting officer, but also the school board, the principal and any teacher that knew about this and enforced it. And I would also hope that it wouldn’t be about money, but about bringing justice to bear, removing these people from their jobs, never to work them again and facing prosecution in the same manner that Mr. Baer did.

As a final exhortation, parents, it’s time you loved your child enough to remove them from the public indoctrination system. I have written about this on several occasions, but here is a good place to start. And now, it’s even easier to start than ever. There is a home school education package, k-12, with the K-5 courses being absolutely free. All you have to do is have the desire to teach your kids and you can save yourself and them the fate of Mr. Baer and other children in the public school system.
Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/12/judge-blasts-school-board-cop-unlawful-arrest-silencing-concerned-father/#bgqasqRFCf4S21TJ.99

GAYSTAPO: The Duggars Under Fire By Gay Lobby For Being An Anomaly In A World Gone Nasty

1 Comment

This is from Clash Daily.

I do not think the Duggars are television worthy.

I mean big damned deal they have 19 kids.

That being said, they have free speech and they are free to express their opinions  without fear of retaliation.

But I am afraid that TLC will cave to pressure and cancel the show.

 

We watch 19 Kids and Counting every single week in this house.  Television has become so trashy that it’s difficult to find tv shows that our entire family from the 2 year old, the 9 year old, and the 14 year old can watch together and actually enjoy.  Even the “kid’s shows” and the “tween shows” on the Nickelodeon and Disney channels aren’t largely acceptable any longer.  If they aren’t filled with heavy pre-teen relationships and make out sessions and disrespect aimed towards their parents and authority figures, there seems to always be something anti-family with a progressive agenda instead.

But now they are under new attack from the Gay Activists groupsalso known as the Gaystapo This is a group routinely used by the left to attack Christians and conservatives by attempting to make themselves victims of the rightby people like the Duggers who are living their own lives and their own values- which obviously cannot be tolerated.  This is a group that preaches loudly that if you disagree with someone or their lifestyle, that you must be a bigot and full of hate.  Change.org is often the vehicle for this behavior and they are on full frontal attack of the Duggers.  From the Bluffingerrr, Huffington Post:

A petition on Change.org launched by Jim Wissick of San Jose, California, states that “19 Kids and Counting,” starring conservative Baptists Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar and their children, should be axed because of the LGBT fearmongering promoted by the family.

“The Duggars have been using their fame to promote discrimination, hate, and fear-mongering against gays and transgendered people,” Wissick wrote in a letter to TLC which was posted on theChange.org petition page. “You need to take a stand on the side of justice and cancel their show.”

His petition currently has more than 12,500 signatures with a goal of 100,000.

What, you ask, could the Duggers have done to perpetuate this kind of response from the Gaystapo?

Wissick highlights Michelle Duggar’s involvement in a robocall against an anti-discrimination housing law affecting the transgender community in Arkansas. In the call, which was made to state residents in August, Michelle said transgender women should not be able to use the proper restroom and dubbed them “males with past child predator convictions that claim they are female.”

Gasp.  Michelle Duggar simply opposed an ordinance of allowing men to use the women’s restroom–depending on what gender they felt they woke up to that morning.  No matter where you stand on gay rights, that leaves most of us uncomfortable knowing that it could be one of our children in one of those stalls alone in the women’s restroom with a man.  This is the same ordinance passed in Houston that embroiled our openly gay Mayor Annise Parker in a battle with Houston area pastors that led to her attempt at subpoenaing all of their sermons.  In Texas we don’t like you messing with our First Amendment and Freedom of Religion rights and so that attempt left her smarting from the backhand of our Constitution.

Read more: Liberty Juice

Professor Hopes to Repeal “Outdated” 2nd Amendment

1 Comment

This is from Town Hall Finance.

Note to the Communist professor Mary Margaret Penrose the Second Amendment assures your First Amendment right as well as the other nine.

The Second Amendment assures our rights as well as protect us from a radical regime like Obama has now.

 

Mary Margaret Penrose, a full time professor of Law with Texas A&M University, has called for the full repeal of the Second Amendment. Utilizing her unquestioned exercise of the First Amendment, the Texas Professor insisted the Constitution was outdated, and needed some substantial re-writing. Penrose was speaking in Connecticut (at a gun-control symposium) when she launched into her misinformed explanation of the Second Amendment; implying that our enumerated right to possess a firearm is largely responsible for the mass shootings that have cropped up in recent years.

Her argument, and blatant contempt for the Constitution (which she admits to describing as an “obsolete” document in her classes) is nothing new among the Left. Among her ramblings about the uselessness of our Constitution she managed to make a “state’s rights” case for the repeal of our Second Amendment right. Penrose argues that States should be able to make their own gun laws, without the burden of complying with that pesky document from the 1700’s.

“… Drastic times require drastic measures. I think the Second Amendment is misunderstood and I think it’s time today, in our drastic measures, to repeal and replace that Second Amendment,” Penrose explained, according to the Daily Caller. Well. . . I think she proved her own point about the Amendment being misunderstood. But it got better:

“The beauty of a ‘states’ rights model’ solution is it allows those of you who want to live in a state with strong restrictions to do so and those who want to live in a state with very loose restrictions to do so,” the professor explained.

Right. . . Because right now places like Chicago and New York have such relaxed restrictions. (Please… I’ll give millions for an effective Sarcasm font.) For the sake of brevity, I guess we can gloss over the very real fact that we already have a state-by-state fluctuation in gun laws. (A point of consternation for law abiding citizens who struggle to remain in compliance with local laws while traveling or moving.)

While I applaud the Leftist’s sudden (if inadequate) grasp of Federalism, she seems wildly unclear on the idea of federally protected individual rights. Our Constitutionally enumerated rights were added to our founding document precisely because our founders feared violation of such rights, if left to local jurisdictions.

By Penrose’s logic, perhaps we should allow states to determine their own “free speech” laws. Would the law professor from A&M be supportive of states determining, on their own, to outlaw or restrict certain religions? What if states mandated allegiance to specific churches? After all, if you didn’t like it you could simply move to another state, according to Penrose. Or what if we allow individual states to determine whether or not women can vote? Name a right (other than gun ownership) and Penrose would likely be opposed to its repeal on a state-by-state basis.

It makes one wonder if she (or for that matter, any of the anti-gun “experts” who spoke at the event in Connecticut) has ever considered what a “gun-free” nation would look like. Perhaps we should send them on a field trip to Mexico’s cartel-plagued cities for an up close and personal view of gun-control in action. In a nation with only one legally operating gun store, and virtually zero tolerance for illegal gun ownership, corruption and crime run rampant. Do you think, for even a moment, Ciudad Juárez’s cartel violence would be tolerated by the well-armed citizens of El-Paso, Texas? Despite the fact that the two towns are separated only by a river, they boast dramatically different gun-violence statistics.

Connecticut’s Governor, Democrat Dannel Malloy, was also on the panel. Malloy jumped on the anti-gun bandwagon by citing past transgressions against the Second Amendment as justification for future transgressions. According to the Daily Caller, Malloy referenced the restriction of fully automatic firearms:

“In the 1930s, machine guns were the weapon of choice for mobsters, and we collectively decided that machine guns should be illegal for private possession in the United States. We don’t see machine guns being used in the U.S. in crimes.”

Well, Malloy. . . First of all, not all “machine guns” are illegal for private ownership. They merely require a $200 tax stamp and some extra scrutiny from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. (The bureau of “All Things Fun.”)

Malloy was referencing the 1934 National Firearms Act, which places restrictions and excise taxes on various types of firearms. It was passed in response to the use of fully automatic firearms in a number of high profile crimes, such as the Saint Valentine’s Day Massacre in Chicago. (That corner of America seems to have always had a serious problem with “gun violence.” Maybe we should outlaw Chicago?)

The 1930’s gun control attempt was largely ineffective at reducing mob violence. It wasn’t until the Feds began to aggressively police the behavior of La Cosa Nostra, later in the century, that much of the violence began to subside. All the Act did in the 1930’s, combined with a secondary ban on automatic firearms passed in the 1980’s, was drive the price of legal automatic firearms through the roof.

The tactic of the 1934 gun control legislation is almost identical to the kinds of racist gun laws that were implemented in the deep-south after the Civil War. Permits, fees and taxes were placed on guns in an effort to price them out of the financial capabilities of average African American families following the Confederate’s defeat. As the Ku Klux Klan rose to power in both the Democrat Party and State Legislatures, gun control became one of their favorite tools to ensure the passivity of minority races.

But details about the 1934 Firearms Act aside, Malloy and Penrose articulated a clear belief that our founding document is outdated and inadequate for today’s world. “Why do we keep such an allegiance to a Constitution that was driven by 18th century concerns?” Penrose opined. I know it’s trite, but it is applicable: According to her logic, the first Amendment is outdated because our founding fathers never foresaw the power of the internet, broadcast or cable television, radio communication, or mass-distribution of printed materials.

Penrose, and the other gun-control advocates on the panel, represent the sizeable portion of Americans who believe crime is the result of inadequate laws. No amount of Constitutional disregard, Second Amendment tinkering, or violation of human rights will suppress all (or even a majority) of violent crime. (Click here for the latest fad among unarmed gang-oriented teenagers.) Penrose is representative of a liberal mentality that the Constitution is merely an obstacle to effective governance, when in reality the Constitution is an obstacle to over-governance.

Repeal the Second Amendment (good luck) and the God-given right to protect, with lethal force, one’s life and property will quickly vanish. The Second Amendment protects more than our right to own hunting rifles, shotguns, and handguns; it clearly articulates the people’s right for armed self-defense. It empowers women against aggressors, it protects the innocent from the criminals, and it keeps further violations of our rights largely at bay.

Penrose explained that “drastic times call for drastic measures.” That call for government action sounds eerily similar to the justification used by despots, dictators and Human Rights violators throughout history. A Law professor should be slightly more sensitive to the fact that criminality will exist regardless of our “drastic measures.” Eliminating the rights of the law abiding is little more than an act of oppression.

These Comments By Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Are Sure To Set Off A Firestorm

Leave a comment

This is from Independent Journal Review.

This reason this will set the liberals off is they know down deep that Antonin Scalia  is correct.

They will never admit Antonin Scalia is correct instead they want to use their perverted version of the Constitution. 

 

During a speech at Colorado Christian University on Wednesday, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia argued that the U.S. Constitution does not prohibit religious references in public places, including schools:

“I think the main fight is to dissuade Americans from what the secularists are trying to persuade them to be true: that the separation of church and state means that the government cannot favor religion over nonreligion.”

Scalia suggested that if Americans want a more secular political system, such as those in Europe, they can “enact that by statute, but to say that’s what the Constitution requires is utterly absurd.”

At the heart of the argument over separation of church and state lies the age-old debate over the intent of the First Amendment:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

So is the intent “freedom of religion,” or “freedom from religion”? Justice Scalia argues that it is the former:

“We do Him [God] honor in our pledge of allegiance, in all our public ceremonies. There’s nothing wrong with that. It is in the best of American traditions, and don’t let anybody tell you otherwise.

 

I think we have to fight that tendency of the secularists to impose it on all of us through the Constitution.”

As a conservative on the bench, Scalia has endured the wrath of liberals for years. These comments are sure to add to the fire. His take on his critics?

“What can they do to me? I have life tenure.”

Poor taste? Texas gun shop owner defends latest anti-Obama sign

1 Comment

This is from BizPac Review.

This sign is not in poor taste, it is however gutsy and oh so true.

 

Did the Texas gun shop, famous for anti-Obama signs, cross the line with latest?

Jeremy Alcede of Katy, Texas’ Tactical Firearms has found a way to advertise his gun shop for next to nothing: put up signs that get everyone talking.

In the past, his notices have demanded the impeachment of President Barack Obama, offered to trade the president to Mexico in return for jailed Marine Andrew Tahmooressi, and mused upon what drugs might have led Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to hallucinate a secure southern border.

sign4

Alcede exercises his First Amendment rights by changing the wording on the sign every Wednesday. Now, however, some are wondering if his latest version might be a little extreme, according to KHOU.

It reads: “Does one of Obama’s family members have to be beheaded for ‘change’ to happen?”

The point is valid—nothing much has changed under this president’s leadership, at least not for the better, which is why his approval ratings have been plummeting in recent weeks.

One of the more significant reasons behind his ratings drop has been the president’s admitted lack of strategy for dealing with the radical Islamic State militants, a threat he has finally been forced to face after ISIS released videos of the brutal beheadings of two American journalists, James Foley and Steven Sotloff.

http://bcove.me/qz4ym453

Once images of those murders became part of the public consciousness, Obama was forced to act—leading from behind, perhaps, but at least he’s finally acting.

Now Alcede wonders whether it’ll take the beheading of one of the president’s own family members to get his attention.

To parents worried about their children reading the sign, Alcede told KHOU, “show them the news and say this is reality kids. Beheadings happen, but they shouldn’t.”

Katy resident Stacey Hays agrees: “He’s saying things the rest of us might be afraid to say.”

Not all who see the sign support Alcede’s point of view, however. Marco Romero says, “I think as far as freedom of speech is concerned it’s protected, but it’s in pretty poor taste,”according to the report.

Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: