It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Federal Judge Orders Sheriff to Take First Amendment Course

page: 1
5

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 08:11 AM
link   
Score one for fans of the First Amendment (and here on ATS we all should be).

An outspoken citizen and his son were seeking gun permits. Both the citizen and his son were denied as the sheriff took issue with their frequent exercise of the 1st amendment by way of protesting, passing out pamphlets and writing letters to the editor of the local papers.

So the citizen took the case to court and the judge said.....


“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 at least Paul Dorr,” Bennett wrote in his ruling.


Ouch - that is pretty strong. Hmmm.lets see what reasons the sheriff gave for his actions...


Weber’s reason for disapproving the application was, “concern from public. Don’t trust him.” The following year Weber also denied Alexander Dorr’s application for a permit and informed Paul Dorr that he would deny any further applications from him.

Weber testified that he had heard people refer to Paul as “a whacko, delusional, a nut job, a spook, and narcissist,” Bennett’s decision noted. “Regardless of the adjective used to describe Paul, however, Sheriff Weber stated that Paul’s ‘lousy’ reputation was due to his political activities of writing letters to the editor and distributing fliers.”


I'll admit I'm surprised the judge didn't side with the LEO as it seems thats the way things usually go no matter what has happened. But I have to admit I'm proud of the judge and of the citizen!

Oh - and about the class the sheriff has to take..


Bennett required Weber take a class that must be a college-level course on the United States Constitution, “including -- at least in part -- a discussion of the First Amendment.” And Bennet said, Weber must obtain approval from the court before participating in the class. Upon completion of the class, Weber must also file anan affidavit with the clerk of court showing successful completion with a passing grade.


For some strange reason the sheriff declined exercise his 1st amendment right to comment on the outcome.

Judge Orders Sheriff to Take First Amendment Course




posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 08:18 AM
link   
I wonder if this was a small county sheriff? He might have had some relevency to having a gut feeling about this guy wanting the gunz. Obviously he cant deny him his right.

I do agree with the ruling but I do think it would be pretty embarassing being the Sheriff. It also doesnt sound like the judge and the Sheriff are drinking buddies...more the opposite



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 08:26 AM
link   
Surely this sets a precedent for any other people who feel their first ammendments rights are being ignored?

I do not know the level of the court but any legal eagles see this as having benefits for other cases?

Applause for the judge.



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 08:27 AM
link   
Here is the entire opinion of the court.

www.independentamerican.org...


The Dorrs waived their claims for nominal, compensatory, and punitive damages. See docket no. 50 (Stipulation of the Parties). However, they preserved their claims to declaratory and injunctive relief. See docket no. 34 (Second Amended Complaint). The Dorrs also maintained their request for: “any injunctive relief deemed necessary to ensure rights protected under the United States Constitution as delineated are no longer violated nor will be violated by … Sheriff Weber ….” Id.


www.independentamerican.org...



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 08:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Frogs
 


Glad to see the judge actually cares what the Constitution says.

Just wondering why the Judge in all his wisdom did not say something about the second amendment?

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
or
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Now, if the judge would have said something like, what the hell is the purpose of permits to carry or own guns? I see by the 2nd amendment that the right SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

Well since he did not do as I stated above, I will give him a half hearted golf clap.

He did about what he should for the first amendment, the second, not so much.



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 08:34 AM
link   
Which is why we dont let some guy decide whether or not we should be permitted to have a thing. Especially a thing granted us in our Constitution.

This couldnt be a more perfect case against authority in general.

This guy got called out and told to get his act together. How many people living in "may issue" areas are in this same situation? For every one that's caught there are at least a dozen more getting away with it.



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 09:21 AM
link   
Well - the case struck a nerve for me as lets face facts - many of us here on ATS are fierce advocates of the 1st amendment. In addition, many here hold and express views that the powers that be would likely rather we didn't express.

As freedoms are frequently trampled in the name of "security" this was a very refreshing eye-opener that there are still a few judges that respect the Constitution.



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by spacedonk
Surely this sets a precedent for any other people who feel their first ammendments rights are being ignored?

I do not know the level of the court but any legal eagles see this as having benefits for other cases?

Applause for the judge.


It's a US District Court case from Iowa. District court cases are not precedent. They can be cited as being persuasive, but not controlling.
If the Sheriff appealed the ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals For The Eighth Circuit, the decision of that court would be precedent, in that Circuit, and that circuit only.



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 09:45 AM
link   
All cops should be forced to do this & pass the exam with at least 95% on the test before they can become cops.



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by 4nsicphd

Originally posted by spacedonk
Surely this sets a precedent for any other people who feel their first ammendments rights are being ignored?

I do not know the level of the court but any legal eagles see this as having benefits for other cases?

Applause for the judge.


It's a US District Court case from Iowa. District court cases are not precedent. They can be cited as being persuasive, but not controlling.
If the Sheriff appealed the ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals For The Eighth Circuit, the decision of that court would be precedent, in that Circuit, and that circuit only.


Thanks for the clarification I will read more about US law to get a better understanding as what you have described is fascinating.




top topics



 
5

log in

join