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.

 

Man ordered to surrender guns – just for blogging

page: 1
14
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Man ordered to surrender guns – just for blogging


www.wnd.com

An Arizona man has filed a federal lawsuit against some of the state's top judges, claiming they're taking away his freedom of speech and right to own firearms, all because someone didn't like what he wrote on his blog.

"You can't suspend someone's constitutional rights [for blogging]," said Mike Palmer, who is bringing forth the legal action. "Everybody in America blogs or Twitters, so it's a First and Second Amendment issue."

The scenario started when Palmer, a 55-year-old Christian missio
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 02:33 PM
link   
I guess we all need to start being more selective in our word choice here on ATS (and other sites). The woman clearly took the man's words out of context. This is a clear violation of his second amendment rights. He committed no crime and he legally owned the firearm. This is a dangerous precedent. Whose guns will they go after next?

www.wnd.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 02:34 PM
link   
Half of the posters on ATS have posted something at one point or another that could be construed as a reason to kick in their door and confiscate their firearms.

The definition of "threat" and what constitutes one is way too broad.



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 02:40 PM
link   
It says in the link:


After WND's coverage of Roth's case, Judge Slaughter eventually reversed her decision on the weapons ban, but Roth says she refused to dismiss his attorney fees.


It appears this was reversed but he still is left with a hefty bill.



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 02:42 PM
link   
Im absolutly gobsmacked every time this administration wipes their rear with the constitution


I don't care what the man said, if he hasn't declared war on America, his constitutional rights have been raped!



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Unity_99
It says in the link:


After WND's coverage of Roth's case, Judge Slaughter eventually reversed her decision on the weapons ban, but Roth says she refused to dismiss his attorney fees.


It appears this was reversed but he still is left with a hefty bill.

That's for a completely different case.
2nd



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by DerbyCityLights
 


Thus far, the only gun grabbing was done by Dubya in New Orleans. Shrub had a small ass so I will give him a pass, but Cheney did a lot of ass wiping with the constitution.

A few more things.

No awarding winning journalist would work for WND.

If you read it in WND, it is probably crap.



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by seabag


I guess we all need to start being more selective in our word choice here on ATS (and other sites). The woman clearly took the man's words out of context. This is a clear violation of his second amendment rights. He committed no crime and he legally owned the firearm. This is a dangerous precedent. Whose guns will they go after next?

www.wnd.com
(visit the link for the full news article)


So many unconstitutional rulings are being issued lately I weep for the future of our nation. Considering the things I've written (and stand by) I'm expecting a Hellfire missile to slam into my house at any m
edit on 9/30/2011 by OldCorp because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Unity_99
It says in the link:


It appears this was reversed but he still is left with a hefty bill.


You are correct, but the fact that the judge overstepped the limits of her authority with regard to the 2nd amendment is disturbing to me. Many people might not be able to afford a good lawyer to argue against such a an order. This isn't something new, I'm just alarmed that the anti-gun people are becoming more and more bold. What crime did he commit to justify stripping him of his constitutional right to keep and bear arms? He was online blogging, not on her doorstep waving a gun!



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by seabag


I guess we all need to start being more selective in our word choice here on ATS (and other sites). The woman clearly took the man's words out of context. This is a clear violation of his second amendment rights. He committed no crime and he legally owned the firearm. This is a dangerous precedent. Whose guns will they go after next?

www.wnd.com
(visit the link for the full news article)


Not just 2nd amendment rights, but is a direct assault on the first amendment as well. As evidenced by what you yourself said here, if not challenged promptly and rebutted thoroughly, this can only lead to a chilling effect on free speech in general as well as religious speech and doctrine and the practice thereof specifically.

I really have a hard time understanding what the hell these judges are actually thinking, their capacity to understand fundamental american foundations, and their lack of what I consider to be the most basic of common sense.

Take care, and here's to seeing this dealt with swiftly.



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 02:57 PM
link   
This is why I only post with a pseudonym and through a proxy server.



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Praetorius
Take care, and here's to seeing this dealt with swiftly.
It is being handled swiftly. Are you not happy with the security being purchased for the low, low price of your freedoms? There is a strict no refund/no return policy.



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by DarthMuerte

Originally posted by Praetorius
Take care, and here's to seeing this dealt with swiftly.
It is being handled swiftly. Are you not happy with the security being purchased for the low, low price of your freedoms? There is a strict no refund/no return policy.


Oh, wait - you're saying if I just keep my mouth shut and give up all my personal liberty and ability to defend myself, the government will always see to my safety and I won't ever have to worry about being hungry, hurt, or stolen from again? And just in case something goes wrong, I still us sticks and melee weapons for self-defense, right?

Well in that case, sign me up! What's a little liberty in light of that? Thanks for setting me straight on this.
edit on 9/30/2011 by Praetorius because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 03:03 PM
link   
I am pretty surprised they are still billing the guy since he didn't even start the case or lost for that matter.

The lady should get the bill since she decided to drag it into court in the first place.

He didn't want to go to court, so he shouldn't have to pay the bill.

She filed the case, she lost, she gets the bill, since when do the winners get bills?

Did i miss something?



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Praetorius

Originally posted by DarthMuerte

Originally posted by Praetorius
Take care, and here's to seeing this dealt with swiftly.
It is being handled swiftly. Are you not happy with the security being purchased for the low, low price of your freedoms? There is a strict no refund/no return policy.


Oh, wait - you're saying if I just keep my mouth shut and give up all my personal liberty and ability to defend myself, the government will always see to my safety and I won't ever have to worry about being hungry, hurt, or stolen from again? And just in case something goes wrong, I still us sticks and melee weapons for self-defense, right?

Well in that case, sign me up! What's a little liberty in light of that? Thanks for setting me straight on this.

I can't tell if this is sarcasm or not and thus do not know how to reply. Care to enlighten me?



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by gariac
reply to post by DerbyCityLights
 


Thus far, the only gun grabbing was done by Dubya in New Orleans. Shrub had a small ass so I will give him a pass, but Cheney did a lot of ass wiping with the constitution.

A few more things.

No awarding winning journalist would work for WND.

If you read it in WND, it is probably crap.


This story is covered on over a dozen different sites, but I know what you're saying about WND. Like everything I read, I make sure its corroborated by other sources before I take it too seriously. Maybe if the judge would have used the same due diligence there would have been a different outcome in that man's case! NAH!

edit on Fri Sep 30 2011 by DontTreadOnMe because: fixed tags



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by DarthMuerte
 
Apologies if I didn't lay that on quite thickly enough.


Definite sarcasm. I've yet to see government on pretty much any level succeed at providing the necessary real-time protection needed against any of these issues. Be well.



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 03:17 PM
link   
still think you live in a free country?

one "wrong word choice" and thats all she wrote

the dude was tagged as "right wing christian fundamentalist" thus was deemed to be a danger to society

so what happened knock knock on that door and nope your rights dont matter.

america died long ago and some people are only now waking up to that fact.

sad reality we live in.

this rates a two thumbs down on my worthless meter



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by OldCorp
 





So many unconstitutional rulings are being issued lately I weep for the future of our nation. Considering the things I've written (and stand by) I'm expecting a Hellfire missile to slam into my house at any m


Why didnt you finish that?
Why did your message just cut off?

....Oh..
...My...
...God...

You Bastards You killed Kenny...
(I mean OldCorp)



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Praetorius
reply to post by DarthMuerte
 
Apologies if I didn't lay that on quite thickly enough.


Definite sarcasm. I've yet to see government on pretty much any level succeed at providing the necessary real-time protection needed against any of these issues. Be well.

Sorry, there are so many liberals here on ATS that seem perfectly happy with trading their freedoms for the government nanny state lifestyle.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join