Arlington Man Loses Gun License Due To Blog About Tucson Shooting

Full Article

ARLINGTON (CBS) – A blog threatening members of Congress in the wake of the Tucson, Arizona shooting has prompted Arlington police to temporarily suspend the firearms license of an Arlington man.

It was the headline “1 down and 534 to go” that caught the attention. “One” refers to Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, who was shot in the head in the rampage, while 534 refers to the other members of the U.S. House and Senate.

Police are investigating the “suitability” of 39-year-old Travis Corcoran to have a firearms license.

Violence is, of course, never an effective nor logical solution; however, it seems that free speech is now under full assault by statist elements of the US & local governments and the media. Regardless of how idiotic this guy's blog was, the government is basically blackmailing him into shutting up by suspending his license and confiscating his weapons. This intimidation has no place in a free society.

reply to post by NthOther


Threats are not protected speech. That is all.

If you imply to have people killed in your opinions whether it's on- or offline should be punished. I never really understood what it would solve to get rid of the other 534 if they will be replaced with the same type of species within days after.

This has nothing to do with free speech in my opinion.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
reply to post by NthOther

 

Threats are not protected speech. That is all.

Short, Concise and 100% accurate!

Tacky and in poor taste.
Really. That was a disgusting comment.

reply to post by NthOther


This guy would be in jail under the new law they are proposing that no threatening speech be made towards representatives.

There is another law they are trying that prohibits carrying a firearm within 1000 yards of a public official. Now I don't even know who all of em are? Is somebody on the park and rec board included under this stupidity? Will public officials have to wear yellow hats to declare themselves? All this kneejerk BS thanks to the media pushing their false "sarah palin's fault" story.

Originally posted by no special characters
If you imply to have people killed in your opinions whether it's on- or offline should be punished. I never really understood what it would solve to get rid of the other 534 if they will be replaced with the same type of species within days after.

This has nothing to do with free speech in my opinion.

So if a fan yells "kill the quarterback" while at a football game they should be punished? Is this where we're headed?

reply to post by Aggie Man


Either all speech is protected speech, or freedom of speech doesn't exist at all. I don't agree with what the guy wrote, but a threat is not a crime. Actions that violate the rights of others are crimes. He's being punished for expressing himself (albeit in a crude and disrespectful way), not committing a crime, which is not acceptable if you believe the phrase "freedom of speech" means something.

Corcoran, who has no criminal history, has not been arrested and does not face any charges. Arlington police saying they are working with the Capitol Police in their investigation, and members of the Massachusetts congressional delegation have been alerted.

While I'm certainly not condoning his words/behavior, what is the legality of his firearms being confiscated when no charges have been filed? Also, not knowing the law in VA, must one have a license to own a rifle? They suspend his license and just take away his guns?

Even if the words constitute a "true threat," where is the legality of taking his guns when he hasn't been charged with anything???

Originally posted by Aggie Man

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
reply to post by NthOther

 

Threats are not protected speech. That is all.

Short, Concise and 100% accurate!

Wrong! Learn what constitutes a threat. This is not a threat.

reply to post by HoldTheBeans


It's a stupid thing to say whatever the context. In comedy one would laugh at the stupidity of the remark. If ones emotions would be so great that he bursts out those words he damn well has to show that he can put his money where his mouth is or he will be the one to turn cold.

Words have value and if they are valued greater by the person at whom the words are directed to it's not unfair to expect the quarterback to pull out a gun and shoot the fan.

I'm sure you get my point. If not I will kill you.

Originally posted by OnTheFelt

Originally posted by Aggie Man

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
reply to post by NthOther

 

Threats are not protected speech. That is all.

Short, Concise and 100% accurate!

Wrong! Learn what constitutes a threat. This is not a threat.

Even if the congresspeople were not individually named, if some of them felt/feel their lives were/are in danger based upon the blog, that very well could constitutes a "true threat," even if the blogger did not intend for harm to happen or intimidate.

You do not have a right to threaten others.
You have no right to make decisions on behalf of the American public. That's why we vote.
You have no right to demand revolution because your candidate was defeated.
also
You can't yell fire in a crowded theater.

Do these have to be added as an amendment to the Constitution before you'll accept them or can you use a little common sense?

Originally posted by damwel
You do not have a right to threaten others.
You have no right to make decisions on behalf of the American public. That's why we vote.
You have no right to demand revolution because your candidate was defeated.
also
You can't yell fire in a crowded theater.

Do these have to be added as an amendment to the Constitution before you'll accept them or can you use a little common sense?

One can demand revolution, as long as the demand does not present a clear and present danger, which incites immediate breach of the peace.

Originally posted by OnTheFelt

Originally posted by Aggie Man

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
reply to post by NthOther

 

Threats are not protected speech. That is all.

Short, Concise and 100% accurate!

Wrong! Learn what constitutes a threat. This is not a threat.

"1 down and 534 to go" 534 to go is the threat. As in 534 more congressman who need to be shot like the 1. Pretty threatening if you ask me.

Originally posted by NthOther
but a threat is not a crime.

Umm.

It most certainly is.

This is AMERICA. We have FREEDOM OF SPEECH. With that being said, and just for the hell of it, I hope the other 534 die painful deaths and BURN IN HELL. How's that for free speech? Wow our rights are just a huge joke now.

Originally posted by HoldTheBeans

This guy would be in jail under the new law they are proposing that no threatening speech be made towards representatives.

That is an incredibly stupid proposal. All one would have to say to a representative is "I'm not going to vote for you" and it technically could be considered threatening to them.

Originally posted by damwel
You do not have a right to threaten others.
You have no right to make decisions on behalf of the American public. That's why we vote.
You have no right to demand revolution because your candidate was defeated.
also
You can't yell fire in a crowded theater.

Do these have to be added as an amendment to the Constitution before you'll accept them or can you use a little common sense?

1. Again, no one was threatened. A threat requires an intent of action, and that intent is clearly missing.
2. Opinions are very different then decisions, please learn the difference.
3. Revolution merely means change, it does not mean violence. Yes this idiot thinks violence is the answer, and IMO that is wrong, but we all have a right to demand a revolution (a peaceful one that is), remember it's all part of the evolution.
4. You got one right, but he didn't yell fire, so your statement is non applicable.

Again, the only thing this guy is guilty of is making a stupid statement. He is protected under our constitution to do so, so until we pass laws outlawing stupidity, you'll just have to keep exercising your own personal freedoms by choosing not to read it.