BUMP!
Posted on 07/08/2010 10:17:19 AM PDT by Paraclete
ping!
He's {0bama} from the "emanations into the penumbra" school. Ugh!Don't forget the "Negative Rights" school. He got that on the record in his 2003(?) NPR interview. Whenever you hear the phrase "negative rights" regarding the Constitution, you know you're listening to a progressive. Probably one who fundamentally despises the Constitution.
I can certainly take a gun out of my house, put it in my car, and drive off with it. I’m supposed to keep the ammo and the gun separate and keep the gun where the driver cannot reach it.
Uh, unfortunately neither have most "U.S." college professors either...
BUMP!
Exactly. Give the judge points for protecting Dorr’s First Amendment rights but perhaps the judge should take a remedial course in 2A. With a reading for comprehension prerequisite. The CCW permit should never have been an issue in the first place.
http://blogs.desmoinesregister.com/dmr/index.php/2010/07/08/federal-judge-blasts-iowa-sheriff-for-denying-gun-permit-to-nut-job/
“”“The court finds a tsunami, a maelstrom, an avalanche, of direct, uncontroverted evidence in Sheriff Weber’s own testimony to conclude beyond all doubt that he unquestionably violated the First Amendment rights of … Paul Dorr,” wrote U.S. District Court Judge Mark W. Bennett of the Northern District of Iowa...
The Dorr case, filed in October 2008, inspired some grassroots activists to push for changes in the state law that gives Iowa sheriff’s almost unlimited discretion to deny weapons permits.
After intense lobbying from Iowa gun rights advocates and the National Rifle Association, state lawmakers earlier this year approved legislation that spells out a narrow list of reasons why a sheriff can deny a permit. The new law takes effect Jan. 1, 2011.
In his ruling Wednesday, Bennett ordered the Osceola County sheriff to immediately issue Dorr a nonprofessional permit to carry a weapon....
“In denying (Dorr) a concealed weapons permit, Sheriff Weber single-handedly hijacked the First Amendment and nullified its freedoms and protections,” Bennett wrote...
Weber testified that after Dorr began to work with a group that challenged the county budget: “People started talking about it saying things like, ‘Oh, that guy’s a nut job. Oh, that guy’s whacko.’”””
Judge Bennett "bitch slaps sheriff Weber"
“Dorr was denied a permit precisely because Sheriff Weber believed that his free speech rights offended the majority of voters in Osceola County,” Bennett wrote in his ruling.
Weber should have been ordered to issue the permit as his last official act in office.
He holds an elected seat. I don’t want judges removing any elected official without a jury trial.
Well that’s just stupid. It’s still his SECOND amendment right that was being violated. If the sheriff had arrested him to prevent him from participating in the group’s activities, that would have been a first amendment violation. So, it turns out that - back to my original question - it was the judge who was wrong.
Did you read the article? The sheriff withheld his permit because he was exercising his 1st Amendment rights.
Yes, I can read. The sheriff violated the man’s 2nd amendment rights because he didn’t like the way the man was exercising his first amendment rights. If the story was that the sheriff had interfered with the man’s ability to speak out, then it would have been a first amendment violation.
“Historically, concealed carry was presumptive proof of criminal intent”
.
Leftist balderdash!
At the time the country was founded, every “gentleman” carried a discreetly concealed weapon. Restrictions have always been unjust, and immoral. Most gun laws arose in the aftermath of the civil war, to control the “freed” slaves.
You need to read more John Lott.
.
Neither am I. I must have gotten discumbobulated or something like that. Regards.
Agreed. Besides, criminals aren't going to care about these stupid sorts of laws when they carry concealed weapons. Nor are any going to bother with the process of getting a fully revocable government "blessing" to carry a concealed weapon either.
As far as I am concerned, a gun should be treated no different than any other piece of personal property. Most people conceal their wallets, why should a gun be treated any differently?
Why not? This commissar willingly and knowingly deprived a law abiding citizen of his God-given constitutionally guaranteed rights. He has no place being a sheriff, or even a dog catcher, in my book.
Then put it to a jury of voters, not a politically appointed position.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.