1st Amendment protects speech involving 2nd Amendment

[Token Republican]

A man in Illinois expressed his views on the Second Amendment. In response, the police department took away his FOID card and his guns. The man sued the police to get them back, and the police said he shouldn't have the right to do that.

The nice judge agreed and said the man only wrote stuff that the police didn't agree with and made the police return the man's guns and FOID card.

The man sued the police and said his exercising free speech should not put him in the same category as people who are mentally unstable or dangerous. The police disagreed.

The nice judge said not so fast. The man can continue with his case against the police to have a judge decide whether or not his second amendment rights were taken away by the police simply because they disagreed with what he said.



Judges Decision

[upaloopa]

1. Let's hope the nice man doesn't become a not

so nice man.
I thought I'd post this because it's what you are fishing for.

[Boom Sound 416]

3. ...

[Eleanors38]

7. Did you pull in a mudfish or an old shoe? One-A was violated...

as well as Two-A. Frankly, unless the man made a specific threat toward a specific person, I don't care what he said. You don't restrict his rights. Time for a lawsuit.

[Loudly]

2. I read quickly through that opinion, and couldn't see where the gun nut was quoted directly.

What did he say about the Second Amendment which caused the concern that he was a clear and present danger?

Did he say that the People have a right of access to guns because they might need to engage in armed rebellion against the government?

If so, then yes his FOID card should be confiscated and revoked.

In any event, Plaintiffs' demand for monetary damages should be denied.

Lee v. Grant, Appomattox Courthouse, 1865.

[SQUEE]

4. look more bigotry.

He dont believe like me, he is crazy.
lock him up? or should we re-educate him?

I think you really need to rethink your premise that force of arms is the deciding factor, your ridiculous psuedomeme of Appomattox is quite telling in how you want this country to run though.

[beevul]

35. In the flesh...

Those bigoted sentiments you refer to, remind me of this:

Are there any queers in the theatre tonight?
Get them up against the wall!
There's one in the spotlight, he don't look right to me
Get him up against the wall!
That one looks Jewish!
And that one's a coon!
Who let all of this riff-raff into the room?
There's one smoking a joint,
And another with spots
If I had my way,
I'd have all of you shot!

http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/In-the-Flesh-II-lyrics-Pink-Floyd/7B31C27F35C5773F482568A1000621FB

For most people, when their behavior starts looking like a pink Floyd song, its cause to re-examine themselves.

For others, not so much.

[Token Republican]

5. Reading is fundamental

It doesn't say anywhere what the man said. The police said the man said something they disagreed with. The nice judge said the police have to show what the man said that was so offense. The police said trust us, and the nice judge said nope, you have to us what he said.

In any event, Plaintiffs' demand for monetary damages should be denied.

Lee v. Grant, Appomattox Courthouse, 1865.

Reading is fundamental.

Your anti gun nuttery aside, you do realize this is a first amendment case. Google First Amendment retaliation claim

Or do you believe the first amendment was also repealed by the Civil War?

[Loudly]

6. The ruling didn't strike down the clear and present danger provision in the FOID law.

And the law expressly states that a clear and present danger can be determined by what a gun nut communicates.

So we're really just debating what a gun nut can communicate which meets or fails to meet the standard of a clear and present danger.

More of a classic case of acceptable limits on speech.

[gejohnston]

8. which there wasn't any evidence of that

not only that, the cops did not have a warrant nor probable cause. The problem isn't with the "gun nut" it is the problem with the badge heavy cops, the type who have no business having a badge or gun let alone be taken seriously in a probable cause affidavit.

There are no acceptable limits on speech.

[Loudly]

10. Laws against the possession of child pornography are a limit on speech.

Acceptable?

[gejohnston]

11. that's not really speech

[Loudly]

12. The jurisprudence describes it as unprotected speech.

Like threatening to harm someone holding political office.

[gejohnston]

13. show me the case law

[Loudly]

28. The leading case is also useful to argue potential harm from mere possession of guns and ammunition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_v._Ferber

[Token Republican]

15. But that's not what happened

If the gentleman who exercised his free speech said that, then you are correct.

But if the gentleman who exercised his free speech said something like the second amendment was not repealed in 1865, then that's protected.

The police said they didn't like what the gentleman said. The nice judge said that the police have to show it was unprotected speech.

Or are you saying the police should be able to revoke any portion of the bill of rights at their sole discretion?

[Loudly]

19. They apparently skipped due process on grounds of exigent threat to public safety.

The pretend "right" you're sticking up for is quite unlike any of our genuine rights.

It needs to be treated differently, because it stands in constant and direct opposition to all of our genuine rights.

That being said, the assistance of the Court should have been sought. If it had, then this opinion might have read quite differently.

[uncommonlink]

20. Who's definition of exigent threat to public safety?

The cops? Guess what, they were wrong and a judge slapped them down for it.

It needs to be treated differently, because it stands in constant and direct opposition to all of our genuine rights.

No, it doesn't.
That is all.

[SQUEE]

21. here, let me help you out

It needs to be treated differently, because it stands in constant and direct support and in protection of all of our other rights.

Again, you think you have another lil clever gotcha, and this is just a battle of sophistry and trite slogans...

What do you want to see done, and what do you bring to the table to stop the bloodshed and slaughter littering Americas streets with brass and bodies.

[uncommonlink]

22. There was no exigent circumstances,

if there were, the cops wouldn't have sent him a letter telling him his FOID card was revoked, they would've shown up on his doorstep and informed him as they were entering his home to confiscate his firearms.
No, what we have here is a case of overzealous cops taking the law into their own hands, bypassing due process, and a judge slapped them down for it.

[Token Republican]

25. Free speech is not a pretend right

The entire bill of rights are genuine rights. Not just the ones that you like.

But ...

That being said, the assistance of the Court should have been sought. If it had, then this opinion might have read quite differently.

On that I agree with you 100%.

[Loudly]

26. There can be no such thing as a "right" of access to the means of

conveniently depriving others of all their genuine rights.

That's why the willful misinterpretation of the 2A can only lay claim to a pretend "right."

[SQUEE]

27. Sorry.

History and the American public disagree with you. Rights are not up to you and I know this pains you... deeply it appears, but what YOU, decide is my right means not a fig to me.

So again tell me about this 2A you know so much about and what you are willing to do to stop the bloodshed you believe it is responsible for, lets deal. Loudly, what are you willing to compromise on in order to move towards a safer society.

[uncommonlink]

29. Loudly-getting it wrong as usual.

SCOTUS, constitutional lawyers, history, and the american public disagree with you, that's good enough for me.

[Loudly]

31. 58 years from Plessy to Brown v. Board of Ed.

And 97 years from Dred Scott.

America is dragged kicking and screaming.

But eventually we get there with the help of social enlightenment.

[uncommonlink]

33. 200+ years of the 2A trumps your Dred Scott and Plessy to Brown v. Board of Ed.

But if you want to fantasize about the abolishment of the 2A, who am I to stop you.
On your mark, get set, GO!!!!!

[beevul]

36. Kicking and screaming huh...

https://www.google.com/search?q=kicking+and+screaming+sharesunited&sitesearch=democraticunderground.com

[Token Republican]

30. o.O

That's why the willful misinterpretation of the 2A can only lay claim to a pretend "right."

I finally understand what you're saying. So there's a grand conspiracy that started with the Federalist Papers, continued into the Constitution, 200 years of writings and cases, plus two SCOTUS decisions which state exactly what the 2A right is.

But they are just part of the conspiracy. But only the internet poster, who goes by the name of Loudly, and the woman who goes by the name of Sasha, know the truth.

I understand you completely now.

[img][/img]

[Loudly]

32. Its Constitutional purpose, now moot, was armed rebellion against the government.

Settled to the contrary for all time at Appomattox Courthouse Virginia in 1865.

[Token Republican]

34. Yes, I agree you are 100% right

You are correct and the whole world is wrong.

I understand now.

Just look at the flowers. Look at the flowers.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

37. "Settled to the contrary for all time at Appomattox Courthouse Virginia in 1865."

1. Please cite the precedent wherein a party unsuccessfully employing a right strips that right from all other people for all time.

2. By claiming the CSA employed its 2A right to violently secede you are claiming the secession was a legitimate exercise of that right. You might as well claim rape is a legitimate exercise of sexual activity.

3. If an unsuccessful employment of a right nullifies that right then it could easily be argued that a successful employment of that right would reinstate the right.

4. States that fought to preserve the Union never sacrificed their rights.

5. The Union fought to preserve the Constitution, not abrogate it. Your argument runs contrary to the purposes of the Union's war effort.

6. After the Civil War constitutional amendments were made. At no time was the disarmament of the citizenry ever considered, not even those from the former secessionist states.

[Loudly]

38. Your reasoning seems circular to me. Or at best an excercise in perpetuating a faulty premise.

The 2A was inserted into the bill of rights to reassure skeptics of a strong central government that they could engage in armed rebellion to throw off tyranny which might result from such concentration of power.

So the CSA did rely on the 2A legitimately, at least in 1860. Their cause was passionately believed in, and the tyranny which they perceived was palpable to them. However, the error of their cause serves as a historical object lesson in why armed rebellion is never legitimate in this country. Because sincerity and passion cannot justify it. Never Again was the sentiment by the time the war ended. (Not: Let's Do This Again Sometime.)

You want to argue the 2A in terms of its being successfully or unsuccessfully exercised, when its very existence has been superseded by our covenant not to engage in armed rebellion against the government. If we have agreed that there is no right of armed rebellion, then there is no 2A, for that is its only Constitutional purpose.

Our argument can therefore be confined to the public policy question of whether it is desirable to allow the public to possess guns and ammunition. That argument quickly becomes one of whether there can be a cost so great associated with indulgence of people with guns that it outweighs the desirability of indulging them. Proponents of endless guns take the position that no amount of misuse will ever be so great as to make it worthwhile to even try to stop further proliferation, let alone undertake any meaningful eradication program.

The rest of what you say flows from what I think is your refusal to admit that the 2A is moot and obsolete. (The Union somehow not relinquishing the "right" because they fought for the Constitution. They are the last ones to claim any such "right" since their struggle was opposing rebellion.) And I don't think you can say that the lack of an effort to disarm the citizenry was in any way a tacit endorsement of some "right" of rebellion remaining with them. The Civil War put an end to that notion for all time.

To summarize, it is simply a stubborn refusal to accept history which is behind the recent-- and hopefully short-lived-- emergence of the myth of the existence of so-called gun "rights" and the willful misinterpretation of the 2A's place in modern American society. That place correctly being a footnote as relevant to us today as the three-fifths compromise.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

39. "You want to argue the 2A in terms of its being successfully or unsuccessfully exercised"

No. That's your argument. You're the one who is incessantly arguing that the 2A was surrendered at Appomattox. It was not. One party cannot surrender the rights of another party because each party inherently enjoys its until forfeited individually.

Governments and humanity have not evolved to the point where one party may safely posses a monopoly on deadly force. Even here in the US the government has shown despotic tendencies, i.e. the Tuskegee experiments, the Chemists War, the NSA, the Athens TN war, etc. To conclude that the people will never, at any time in the future need to defend themselves

Our argument can therefore be confined to the public policy question of whether it is desirable to allow the public to possess guns and ammunition.

That is nothing more than argument by assertion. You declare a statement and assume it to be true without basis in fact or evidence.

Proponents of endless guns take the position that no amount of misuse will ever be so great as to make it worthwhile to even try to stop further proliferation, let alone undertake any meaningful eradication program.

Again, You're arguing by assertion as well as straying from your Appomattox argument.

The fact remains, people and governments are corrupt and tend towards despotic behavior. They cannot be held in check by laws or appeals to humanity as they are motivated solely by their own purposes. Every history textbook bears this out. The question then becomes, do their would-be victims have a right to resist and defend themselves?

(The Union somehow not relinquishing the "right" because they fought for the Constitution. They are the last ones to claim any such "right" since their struggle was opposing rebellion.)

This is nonsensical and without basis.

You're arguing that because the Union states did not enjoin the Rebellion they forfeited their rights to exercise their guards against government tyranny for all time forward.

I have never been subject to a police search, but I assert my 4A rights. My rights exist in spite of the absence of predicating events. Furthermore, I retain these rights even though in times past, people have fraudulently asserted they were unreasonably subjected to a search. Although I wonder --

Since I assert my 1A rights to speak in favor of my 2A rights I wonder whether or not some believe I have summarily forfeited my 4A and 5A rights.

[Loudly]

40. You will never initiate armed rebellion against the government.

And you will never follow anyone who does.

And anyone who does will be crushed pursuant to the Covenant of Appomattox.

The 2A is a smoke screen for what guns and ammunition are really all about in our society.

To wit: Settling personal grievances, commencing crime, and lashing out toward those around us.

A costly indulgence based upon a fraud.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

41. Mayhap with a faithful guarding of the 2A the need will never arise.

Wouldn't that be even better?

Still, your support for unbridled and unresisted fascism is duly noted. Your every argument hinges on government do whatever it wants without anyone having the means of moral authority to resist.

As an aside, since you're so convinced military power is the end-all, be-all to settle contests at arms -- do you think, given a sufficient application of military force, against the non-military civilian population in Iraq and Afghanistan would be eventually and permanently subdued?

[Jgarrick]

42. In an earlier thread, I pointed out that only (roughly) 1 in 4000 rounds of ammunition are used for

"Settling personal grievances, commencing crime, and lashing out toward those around us", a point which you did not even attempt to rebut.

Why are you still saying that something is "all about" that, when it's only used for that purpose 0.025% of the time?

[beevul]

43. Fishing eh?

The 2A is a smoke screen for what guns and ammunition are really all about in our society.

To wit: Settling personal grievances, commencing crime, and lashing out toward those around us.

How can the second amendment be "about" the things you claim it is, when less than 1 percent of the population engage in those things?

Checkmate.

[clffrdjk]

14. Correct me if I am wrong but those laws still require evidence.

Of which there was none in this case.

[Loudly]

17. The opinion does not quote the gun nut directly, so how do you know?

And unless I missed that direct quote somewhere, I would go further and assert that the opinion *carefully avoids* quoting the gun nut directly in order to deprive the reader an opportunity to decide whether a clear and present danger existed.

[uncommonlink]

18. Either the cops wouldn't tell the judge what he said,

or the judge ruled that the cops wayy overstepped their bounds by violating the man's 1A.
Any way you look at it, the cops were in the wrong and the judge slapped them for it.

And why do you label him a gun nut? Do you know him personally? Or is this just you casting aspirations again?

[Token Republican]

23. I do believe you've got it!

There is no quote because the police never said what the speech was.

They just said the gentleman said something didn't like.

The nice judge said to the police that's not enough. Either tell us what the gentleman said or STFU.

The police didn't so the nice judge gave the gentleman his guns back.

Now the gentleman is suing the police under a 1983 claim.

The police said neener neener neener. We can do what we want.

The nice judge said, no, you can't, and told the police to state what they found to be so offensive.

[Token Republican]

24. Correct

If the gentleman turns out not to be so gentle, then the cops had every right to take away his guns.

But the cops didn't do that. They just said he said something they didn't like and revoked his 2A rights.

He sued and the cops didn't present any evidence. So the gentleman won.

Now the gentleman is suing the cops for acting in bad faith. And the cops still won't tell the nice judge what the gentleman said.

And the nice judge said no and told the police to produce their evidence.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

9. This malarky again, huh?

In edition to every other flaw in that argument I have pointed out in the past I will add --

Illinois never rebelled. In fact, it fought to preserve the Union. Therefore, Illinois never surrendered at Appomattox. It solidified its constitutional rights including the 2A.

[Token Republican]

16. Shh

Some people get confused with facts. People like that usually just bleat loudly.