Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that the First Amendment protects fundamentalist church members who mount anti-gay protests outside military funerals, despite the pain they cause grieving families.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110302/ap_ ... l_protests

Now its time for the locals to get on the stick and start passing their own laws.. Make em require a permit and then limit their minimum distance to the funeral at least a 1/4 of a mile away,,then any that violate that get their asses sent to the county community center for ignorant protesters where hopefully some of the other guests are ex military types with bad attitudes,

I believe in the first amendment and it's entitlements. That being said, I also believe that those bastards ought to have their skin pilled off by a vet who has personally lost a friend, comrad or sibling. They don't want to show up anywhere I am. Amendments or not, common sense and good taste should drive these bastards away in shame. If it will not, I'll excercise my right to give them an ass wooooopin they'll not soon forget. I saw a show on these coward idiots about two years ago, and I'm still sick to my stomach thinking about them and I try hard not to.

Have truck, will travel to wooooop that ass!

No big surprise here. If long haired hippies can burn the flag on the steps of the capitol building then things like this certainly follow. I honestly cant believe that these people actually do this kind of stuff. And now, since SCOTUS has ruled they cant be ran off even by the grieving family. Twits like this always get theirs in the end. May not be today or tomorrow but it will come. Lets wait until one of their congregation dies and they are having the funeral...

zephyp wrote:No big surprise here. If long haired hippies can burn the flag on the steps of the capitol building then things like this certainly follow. I honestly cant believe that these people actually do this kind of stuff. And now, since SCOTUS has ruled they cant be ran off even by the grieving family. Twits like this always get theirs in the end. May not be today or tomorrow but it will come. Lets wait until one of their congregation dies and they are having the funeral...

I'm not particularly familiar with the legal arguments of this case, but...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Says nothing about the States of localities, just that the Federal government can't.

gunderwood wrote:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Says nothing about the States of localities, just that the Federal government can't.

That is true. However, there is case law that extends the the protections of the Bill of Rights down to the local level.

Seems to me the protests would fall under harasment but I ain't a lawyer.

KaosDad wrote:

gunderwood wrote:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Says nothing about the States of localities, just that the Federal government can't.

That is true. However, there is case law that extends the the protections of the Bill of Rights down to the local level.

Yes, and in certain cases that makes sense. For example, the 2nd only says the right shall not be infringed. It makes no reference to who can not do the infringing. Presumably when the states ratified that amendment, they gave up the power to infringe. The 14th Amendment muddies the waters and that is really where "incorporation" came into play.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporat ... _of_Rights

Rightly or wrongly, the first was incorporated.

Vahunter wrote:Seems to me the protests would fall under harasment but I ain't a lawyer.

You would think so. I guess if I punched them in the face, their signs could be construed as an incitement to riot....

I know what sign I'm carrying if they show up anywhere around here... "Thank God for Live Targets" - as my spoof of their signs...

gunderwood wrote:Yes, and in certain cases that makes sense. For example, the 2nd only says the right shall not be infringed. It makes no reference to who can not do the infringing. Presumably when the states ratified that amendment, they gave up the power to infringe. The 14th Amendment muddies the waters and that is really where "incorporation" came into play.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporat ... _of_Rights

Rightly or wrongly, the first was incorporated.

I am shocked that I am the one that is saying this to gunderwood, I know you love reading and research, so here is a website to visit: http://legis.state.va.us/laws/search/constitution.htm. I realize the case in question wasn't in VA, but if you look at Article 1 of Virginia's Constitution, you might see some things that look familiar. James Madison borrowed more than a little from George Mason's work in 1776.

As for Westboro I spent way to long serving this country, to decide it would be right to take someone's right to be an a$$hole and proclaim it to the world. Just like the KKK they have the right to march and demonstrate. I understand there was a law in place limiting them to a thousand feet from the funeral and they were in compliance. I personally believe that people, communities and businesses could take a different approach to dealing with Westboro. As private businesses, the owners and managers have the right to refuse service to anyone. Imagine what it would be lke if Westboro decided to fly to a funeral and couldn't get plane tickets or hotel/motel reservations. Imagine if the news organizations would just announce that they protested, and didn't go into playing the noisy a$$holes or displaying the pictures. There message would get to no one. They have the right to speak, they can't force any one to listen.

grumpyMSG wrote:

gunderwood wrote:Yes, and in certain cases that makes sense. For example, the 2nd only says the right shall not be infringed. It makes no reference to who can not do the infringing. Presumably when the states ratified that amendment, they gave up the power to infringe. The 14th Amendment muddies the waters and that is really where "incorporation" came into play.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporat ... _of_Rights

Rightly or wrongly, the first was incorporated.

I am shocked that I am the one that is saying this to gunderwood, I know you love reading and research, so here is a website to visit: http://legis.state.va.us/laws/search/constitution.htm. I realize the case in question wasn't in VA, but if you look at Article 1 of Virginia's Constitution, you might see some things that look familiar. James Madison borrowed more than a little from George Mason's work in 1776.

I never bothered to check if all 50 states have such a clause, but it wouldn't make much sense to incorporate a federal amendment if all states already has such declarations. This is an issue larger than VA, but you are correct that VA already recognized it in our state constitution, so incorporation didn't do anything on that point.

That burning of the flag bothered me immensely as a younger adult, but with age I begin to see the wisdom of the Court at the time. As for these twits, bumper stickers describing their hypocrisy don't need to await a funeral. I'm not a bumper sticker kind of guy, but I could make an exception. That'd be my first amendment rights.

We can argue legality, Constitutionality, state, federal, etc all day long...what these twits do is just plain wrong, immoral, and mean spirited.

zephyp wrote:We can argue legality, Constitutionality, state, federal, etc all day long...what these twits do is just plain wrong, immoral, and mean spirited.

+1

gunderwood wrote:

zephyp wrote:We can argue legality, Constitutionality, state, federal, etc all day long...what these twits do is just plain wrong, immoral, and mean spirited.

+1

+ another 1

VBshooter wrote:Now its time for the locals to get on the stick and start passing their own laws.. Make em require a permit and then limit their minimum distance to the funeral at least a 1/4 of a mile away,,then any that violate that get their asses sent to the county community center for ignorant protesters where hopefully some of the other guests are ex military types with bad attitudes,

I would argue that those restrictions violate their first amendment rights.

I'm a US Marine, and present and past vets took an oath to protect everyone's constitution rights, all of them, not the ones we agree with.

Just as most of us feel local and state and federal regulations violate our second amendment rights same goes for the first amendment!

The solution to these protest is private property laws...

They would still be allowed to protest just at a respectful distance with possible penalties for not doing it that way,

cyras21 wrote:

VBshooter wrote:Now its time for the locals to get on the stick and start passing their own laws.. Make em require a permit and then limit their minimum distance to the funeral at least a 1/4 of a mile away,,then any that violate that get their asses sent to the county community center for ignorant protesters where hopefully some of the other guests are ex military types with bad attitudes,

I would argue that those restrictions violate their first amendment rights.

I'm a US Marine, and present and past vets took an oath to protect everyone's constitution rights, all of them, not the ones we agree with.

Just as most of us feel local and state and federal regulations violate our second amendment rights same goes for the first amendment!

The solution to these protest is private property laws...

This is exactly the discussion we were having before. The 1st technically only restricts Congress until the 14th Amendment was interpreted to incorporate the 1st on states. The 2nd only says that it shall not be infringed, thus IMHO it didn't need incorporated under the "due process" clause of the 14th because simple ratification of it required the states to also not infringe...unlike the 1st. Remember that in our system it isn't federal is always greater than the states or states are always greater than the federal. They each have their roles and limited powers. IMHO, incorporating the 1st under the 14th's "due process" clause was probably the wrong thing to do legally, morally and practically.

Legally the argument is nothing but a power grab IMHO as the 1st language is clear that it only applies to Congress and the states at the time of ratification and even after it, did actually enact restrictions for local sensibilities.

Morally the argument presumes residents from other states have the right or ability to dictate local sensibilities. Part of the genius of the American system, which was suppose to make it flexible enough to last, is reserving considerable power at the local level so that a nation of diverse people (we were even at the revolution...north vs. south isn't a new thing) can work together on national issues like defense, but still preserve local cultures and sensibilities.

Practically there has been a great amount of induced animosity because of the power to force (or at least attempt to force) others to behave like you want them to at the federal level. IMHO, socially it makes much more sense to let local communities decide these sort of decency issues if their Constitutions and laws permit it.

As Grumpy pointed out correctly, VA affirms the right to free speech so our options were more limited than other states which may not, but now that is has been incorporated it doesn't matter much.

grumpyMSG wrote:As private businesses, the owners and managers have the right to refuse service to anyone. Imagine what it would be lke if Westboro decided to fly to a funeral and couldn't get plane tickets or hotel/motel reservations.

this has happened. Someone slashed their tires in McAlister OK ano no one would help them.

http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2010/nov/1 ... -oklahoma/

Shortly after finishing their protest at the funeral of Army Sgt. Jason James McCluskey of McAlester, a half-dozen protesters from Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kan., headed to their minivan Saturday, only to discover that its front and rear passenger-side tires had been slashed.

To make matters worse, as their minivan slowly hobbled away on two flat tires, with a McAlester police car following behind, the protesters were unable to find anyone in town who would repair their vehicle, according to police.

They have a special hatred of that town now.

I would point out the entire Phelps family are lawyers-they make their living suing and settling with municipalities.

cyras21 wrote:The solution to these protest is private property laws...

Thanks for your service and I disagree entirely. The solution is for others to protest and block the grieving families from being able to see these twits. Let them do just a protective herd does to the young...make a big circle and face out...fight their right with the same one.

Saul Alinsky...rules for radicals...make them play by their own rules...use their strategy against them...