Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Gun Control & RKBA
In reply to the discussion: A common question to both sides... [View all]ellisonz
(27,711 posts)97. Known member of a known hate group or criminal organization...
...that advocates violence against fellow citizens or violent political change.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/civilrights/hate_crimes/overview
In 1997, the case of People ex rel Gallo v Carlos Acuna [4] challenged the constitutionality of gang injunctions. Lower courts had held that provisions disallowing gang members to associate with one another violated their first amendment right to free assembly. However, the Supreme Court of California upheld the constitutionality of the use of gang injunctions, finding that gang activity fell under the definition of a public nuisance. Nonetheless, a dissenting opinion authored by Justice Stanley Mosk warned that "The majority would permit our cities to close off entire neighborhoods to Latino youths who have done nothing more than dress in blue or black clothing or associate with others who do so; they would authorize criminal penalties for ordinary, nondisruptive acts of walking or driving through a residential neighborhood with a relative or a friend." In a similar case, the 1999 case of Chicago v. Morales [5] against a 1992 anti-"Congregation Ordinance" in Chicago resulted in the U.S. Supreme Court upholding the Illinois Supreme Court's ruling that the ordinance violated due process and arbitrarily restricted personal liberties.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gang_injunction
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gang_injunction
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
118 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Definition of "militia" is clear. And, it is not not a bunch of right wingers living in a compound.
Hoyt
Jan 2012
#7
It has been well documented here what "well regulated" means and it is not what you think
rl6214
Jan 2012
#14
Decided correctly in your mind is the way you want it, not the way the law really is
rl6214
Jan 2012
#16
That certain local governments fail to comply with the letter and spirit of court decisions
ObamaFTW2012
Jan 2012
#22
We'll buy your interpretation for a moment -- then, leave your guns at home until called.
Hoyt
Jan 2012
#21
As long as they don't try to stop the other 4% (assuming your "96%" is accurate)
ObamaFTW2012
Jan 2012
#32
We have the right to do a lot of things, but shouldn't -- like carrying guns in public.
Hoyt
Jan 2012
#33
Once again, a pro-gunner trying to compare his poor, pitiful gun plight to THE Civil Rights Movement
Hoyt
Jan 2012
#48
I'll get back to you on that as well as my reading of Stevens, et al...
discntnt_irny_srcsm
Jan 2012
#56
" A healthy fear of the people by the government yields freedom." - or Tyranny.
ellisonz
Jan 2012
#91
At the same time the Constitution clearly makes treason a punishable offense...
ellisonz
Jan 2012
#94
So, why doesn't the Constitution start with, "We the militia . . . . ." instead of "we the people."
Hoyt
Jan 2012
#49
Are squirrels in the militia? Sounds to me it's "people" the way you HAVE TO DEFINE IT
Hoyt
Jan 2012
#61
Hopefully, we'll get a Supreme Court in the next few years that is not so right wing. --
Tuesday Afternoon
Jan 2012
#77