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.
Originally posted by 00nunya00
Since my post was ignored in the other thread about this, I'll repost it here and see if it gets any discussion:
The difference between the original code (which is ALREADY law) and the new amended code is the deletion of two very important subsections:
(c) Violation of this section, and attempts or conspiracies to commit such violations, shall be prosecuted by the United States attorney in the Federal district court having jurisdiction of the place where the offense occurred.
(d) None of the laws of the United States or of the several States and the District of Columbia shall be superseded by this section.
The new version now allows any of this to take place in direct violation of both Federal and State laws prohibiting the restriction of freedom of protest or any number of other things. It now can be argued to supersede any other US or State law in its application, as this clause was specifically eliminated.
Furthermore, and scarier, it now deletes the requirement that the offender be prosecuted by the AG in a jurisdictional Federal court instead of being tried by the military under NDAA laws in the jurisdiction of whereeverthehelltheywant, including Gitmo.
Bond has standing to challenge the federal statute on grounds that the measure interferes with the powers reserved to States.
Originally posted by MountainLaurel
I did read your post, but I don't understand it even with your explinations, was deleting these subsections a positive thing then?
Originally posted by ownbestenemy
Second, I believe -- and I am not speaking for them -- they are stating it isn't a good turn of events. It brings the existing law in line with the NDAA law by A: Removing the requirement that a person subject to the current law falls under the jurisdiction of the AG of the United States -- and -- B: They wish to strike the clause that specifically stated that State's held jurisdiction.
Originally posted by 00nunya00
Originally posted by ownbestenemy
Second, I believe -- and I am not speaking for them -- they are stating it isn't a good turn of events. It brings the existing law in line with the NDAA law by A: Removing the requirement that a person subject to the current law falls under the jurisdiction of the AG of the United States -- and -- B: They wish to strike the clause that specifically stated that State's held jurisdiction.
Finally, someone pays attention.
Jesus H.
Originally posted by Xcathdra
HR 347 does not prevent protests.
HR 347 applies a federal statute to federal buildings in terms of tresspassing, as local and state laws apply to local and state buildings / property.
Protesting is valid and legal.
Rioting, destroying private and public property, blocking public roadways preventing citizens who are NOT protesting from using those roads / avenues / etc, are illegal as they do not fall under protesting.
People need to learn the difference between what protesting is, and what it is not.
Unless law enforcement has a specific agreement with a private property holder, they cannot enforce tresspassing laws, as the police are not responsible for the property. To get around that, businesses sign agreements of enforcement, allowing the police to enforce no tresspassing on private property absent property owners presence.
If you want to get technical cases can be made for burglary,. which is a felony, instead of trresspassing. Forcibly entering premises that do not belong to you. HR 347 is Federal, since local and state authorities are not empowered to enforce federal law, and federal officers are not empowered to enforce state local law.
Hence the reason people mut be knowledgable about how their government works, at aLL levels.
Originally posted by ownbestenemy
Originally posted by 00nunya00
Originally posted by ownbestenemy
Second, I believe -- and I am not speaking for them -- they are stating it isn't a good turn of events. It brings the existing law in line with the NDAA law by A: Removing the requirement that a person subject to the current law falls under the jurisdiction of the AG of the United States -- and -- B: They wish to strike the clause that specifically stated that State's held jurisdiction.
Finally, someone pays attention.
Jesus H.
Calm down -- It is why I also stated case law to counter it.
Originally posted by 00nunya00
ETA: the problem with citing precedent from your linked case is that the defendant committed a crime that the government then wanted to call a felony based on the enforcement of federal terrorism laws that the court saw as an unconstitutional overreach of government. If one challenged their incarceration or conviction under the law this thread is debating, they could not cite precedent from Bond because the act they committed was carried out on, for all intents and purposes, temporary federal property and therefore fully subject to federal statutes rather than local ones.
Originally posted by dagon
reply to post by jrkelly77
Hence the reason for the 2nd amendment, brother.
I think it is disgusting that republicans think it is a good idea to replace constitutional rights with government granted privileges....you have to buy a license from the government to conceal carry or stage a protest already. And a majority of folks in the U.S. don't see how this is already an erosion of rights.
Originally posted by lady_mezuza
If someone does not like what someone is doing then they have the capability to write letters. No one is stopping them. People should not have the right to stand around the street or sidewalk interfering with law biding citizens right to travel while trying to manipulate people's view points. It is intimidation pure and simple.
Originally posted by lady_mezuza
The second amendment is way outdated. We have police and armies now to protect us.
Many people like those against the police should not be allowed any firearms period. And many of those should be wearing straight jackets. They all have mental problems.
No one with a mental problem should be allowed the capability to buy an assault weapon and spray down dozens of people at will.
People should not have the right to stand around the street or sidewalk interfering with law biding citizens right to travel while trying to manipulate people's view points. It is intimidation pure and simple.
Having to petition for a permit is hardly an erosion of rights. It is merely making sure that your actions do not impose on other people.
The constitution needs to be revisited. Society has evolved since those days. We need not be hindered by antiqued documents.
Originally posted by ownbestenemy
Originally posted by lady_mezuza
The second amendment is way outdated. We have police and armies now to protect us.
So an Amendment, which speaks to the Natural Right of self-defense, is outdated? That we must rely upon others for our own protection?
Originally posted by ownbestenemy
Originally posted by lady_mezuzaMany people like those against the police should not be allowed any firearms period. And many of those should be wearing straight jackets. They all have mental problems.
It took til your third sentence to bring out the large broad brush and start painting persons who question the tactics that are being employed by some police officers as having "mental problems."
Originally posted by ownbestenemy
Originally posted by lady_mezuzaNo one with a mental problem should be allowed the capability to buy an assault weapon and spray down dozens of people at will.
What is a mental problem, who will decide and at what severity.
Originally posted by ownbestenemy
Originally posted by lady_mezuzaPeople should not have the right to stand around the street or sidewalk interfering with law biding citizens right to travel while trying to manipulate people's view points. It is intimidation pure and simple.
This all depends here. If we are talking about say a "human-chain" and it is deliberately preventing the normal flow of traffic then I am all for intervention to only ensure that normal flow resumes. If the protesters wish to continue with that, then they crossed the line from protesting to being a nuisance.
As far as your claim of "manipulation", isn't that what you are doing now? Trying to persuade your reader's that your views should be heard above others? This is the 3rd day I have ran across such irony and it seems completely lost on people.
Originally posted by ownbestenemy
Originally posted by lady_mezuzaHaving to petition for a permit is hardly an erosion of rights. It is merely making sure that your actions do not impose on other people.
And what happens when the State begins to deny permits -- for reason that are not so clear anymore? In the name of security? In the name of the Public Good (as if the State knows what the Public Good is).
The constitution needs to be revisited. Society has evolved since those days. We need not be hindered by antiqued documents.
And here in lies the issue that I have with your line of reasoning. The Constitution isn't directed towards the People. It is a document aimed at what the Government can and cannot do. We are not hindered by it at all. It is the Government not following it that is the hindrance. But I will agree that it does need to be revisited more often rather than implementing code and bogus legislation to circumvent the prescribed path set forth via the Constitution.
Originally posted by lady_mezuza
What do you have against the police? It is their job to protect the citizens. If you are living a life where you have to defend yourself frequently then maybe you should rethink the people you hang out with. Accept some personal responsibility for the company you keep.
What tactics? Police have to do what they can to keep the crazies in line. If you have a problem with police then maybe you should rethink your lifestyle. People need to accept personal responsibility for the choices they make. So long as you do what the police tell you to do then you will have no problems with them.
Obviously anyone who is paranoid and thinks the police are out to get them shouldn't be allowed to have an assault weapon.
No I am just using common sense. Obviously a document that is over 200 years old is outdated and needs to be replaced.
The government would be well within reason to deny some permits. Some people who want to spread paranoia or propaganda against the government would be against the better good of society.
Society as a whole needs to be protected against the mental cases. We have enough problems without a bunch of crazies coming along claiming the government is out to get them. Society has evolved. There are not a bunch of Nazis out to get people. We need to be civilized.
Originally posted by ownbestenemy
Originally posted by lady_mezuza
What do you have against the police? It is their job to protect the citizens. If you are living a life where you have to defend yourself frequently then maybe you should rethink the people you hang out with. Accept some personal responsibility for the company you keep.
You make a contradicting statement -- saying on one had we must rely upon the police to protect us -- then saying we must accept some personal responsibility.
I have no problems in general with police officers that execute their duties of law enforcement. I beg you to find where I have otherwise stated I have.
Originally posted by ownbestenemy
Originally posted by lady_mezuza
What tactics? Police have to do what they can to keep the crazies in line. If you have a problem with police then maybe you should rethink your lifestyle. People need to accept personal responsibility for the choices they make. So long as you do what the police tell you to do then you will have no problems with them.
Then I ask you: If a police officer comes knocking; nay, breaking down your door; doesn't produce a warrant and seizes your personal effects -- are you obligated to obey the "unlawful" orders at that point? According to you, we must just acquiesce and accept the commands barked at us without even questioning.
Originally posted by ownbestenemy
Originally posted by lady_mezuzaObviously anyone who is paranoid and thinks the police are out to get them shouldn't be allowed to have an assault weapon.
I see you equate the 2nd Amendment to "assault weapon(s)". Or even just self-defense. Should that same person be able to keep a set of quality kitchen knives in their home? What about a bat? Both could be just as deadly and in some cases, much more gruesome. Where do you draw the line?
Or are you saying that we, as freemen, shouldn't have the "personal responsibility" (as you keep advocating) to maintain our own protection?
Originally posted by ownbestenemy
Originally posted by lady_mezuzaNo I am just using common sense. Obviously a document that is over 200 years old is outdated and needs to be replaced.
Completely replaced? What parts are outdated?
Originally posted by ownbestenemy
Originally posted by lady_mezuzaThe government would be well within reason to deny some permits. Some people who want to spread paranoia or propaganda against the government would be against the better good of society.
Your true colors are revealed here. Should we bring back the Alien and Sedition Acts? How about we take away the restriction we have bound to Government regarding Free Press. I mean, we need Government to go out and get those crazies that are rambling on about paranoia and government sedition! Congress should be able to pass legislation that limits our speech right?
Originally posted by ownbestenemy
Originally posted by lady_mezuzaSociety as a whole needs to be protected against the mental cases. We have enough problems without a bunch of crazies coming along claiming the government is out to get them. Society has evolved. There are not a bunch of Nazis out to get people. We need to be civilized.
Nazis? Where do you get this stuff from? You think society has evolved so much? Have you been to inner-city areas? Areas where heavy restriction on owning a gun is placed upon private law-abiding citizens? Who do you think commits more crimes with a gun? A criminal who cares not about the law or you or I that respects the law?
I will agree with one aspect -- we do need to be civilized but you cannot have Government force civility.
Why should the police need a warrant? If you weren't up to something then the police wouldn't have been called to your home in the first place. The police are far too busy to target innocent people.
Originally posted by lady_mezuza
You do not trust the police to protect you from crime. That is where the paranoia shows.
Originally posted by lady_mezuza
Why should the police need a warrant?
If you weren't up to something then the police wouldn't have been called to your home in the first place. The police are far too busy to target innocent people.
Originally posted by lady_mezuza
It is people's job to obey the law. No one has a reason to have firearms in the home. If something happens then call the police. The only reason to have a gun is to kill someone with it.
Originally posted by ownbestenemy
Most of the constitution needs to be rewritten to reflect current times. Much of it should be stricken entirely.
Originally posted by ownbestenemy
People should not have the right to spread fear and propaganda with their speech.
Anyone spouting negativity has something obviously mentally off about them and should be taken for at least observation.
Originally posted by xuenchen
reply to post by lady_mezuza
Why should the police need a warrant? If you weren't up to something then the police wouldn't have been called to your home in the first place. The police are far too busy to target innocent people.
That's a bit far fetched.
"Warrantless" intrusions have at least two possible consequences.
One would be reaction without thought and could lead to mistakes.
Another would be opening the door to home invasions by groups
that appear to be police.
As it is, the police can act on probable cause, which many times is justified.
Warrantless intrusions may not be fully investigated after the fact.