AZ Assault Rifle-Wielding Man And Gun-Toter In NH Belong To Same Right-Wing Group

[RamboLiberal]

Chris Broughton, the man who brought an assault rifle to an Obama event in Arizona earlier this week, and William Kostric, who protested outside a presidential forum in New Hampshire armed with a handgun last week, are both listed as "team members" of the Arizona chapter of the We The People organization.

The group is committed to "restoring Freedom and Constitutional Order through the exercise of popular sovereignty by all possible non-violent means."

Kostric, whose residence on the chapter page is listed as Scottsdale, AZ, has reportedly moved to New Hampshire because he thought Arizona's gun laws were becoming too strict.

Broughton, whose full name was reported today by the Arizona Republic, told the newspaper he "wasn't seeking a personal spotlight by arming himself and strolling through crowds of Obama supporters."

"I don't want to be Joe-the-Plumber. ... I'm hoping my 15 minutes are over," said Broughton, who walked around outside the Obama health care event with a loaded AR-15 and a pistol, and took part in a pre-planned interview that was put on YouTube.

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/08/report_az_assault_rifle-wielding_man_and_nh_gun_to.php?ref=fpa

The man who brought an assault rifle to President Barack Obama's rally on Monday in a staged media event that drew national attention is a Phoenix resident with ties to several anti-government or nativist groups.

The man, who until now has only been identified as "Chris B." is actually 28-year-old Christopher Broughton, a former employee of a Tempe plastic mold manufacturer who says he wasn't seeking a personal spotlight by arming himself and strolling through crowds of Obama supporters.

"I want attention brought to the ideas that I espouse," Broughton told The Arizona Republic, which confirmed his identity through relatives and former coworkers on Friday. "I don't think the political process works any more. It is done . . . This government is the most corrupt Mafioso on the face of the earth."

----

Broughton called the timing and the circumstances of the armed protests coincidental. Broughton said the rifle, a loaded AR-15 that he brought to the Phoenix rally, is a symbol of resistance, the modern-day equivalent of a pitchfork that citizens once took up in opposition to oppressive political leaders.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2009/08/21/20090821broughton0821-ON.html

[The Magistrate]

1. Time For The F.B.I. To Act, Ma'am: Arrests Are Needed Now, And Needed Badly

[EFerrari]

5. You have a lot more confidence in the FBI than I do, Sir.

Mr. Mueller has another 18 months left in his tenure, for one thing. Since he facilitated so much for the torture president, it's hard to see how the place can be fumigated until he is gone.

[The Magistrate]

6. It Is Not My Expectation They Will Act, Ma'am, But They Certainly Should

We both know if these people carried Marxist slogans along with their weapons they would be dead or in prison by now.

Mueller is, in my view, a traitor and utterly unfit for office.

[EFerrari]

7. We need a Frank Church. How that gentleman was able to do

as much as he did amazes me.

[aikoaiko]

8. on what charge do you suggest they be charged with?

:shrug:

[The Magistrate]

10. Seditious Conspiracy Would Do For a Start, Sir

Interrogation and searches would doubtless turn up juicier items, various weapons and explosives and trafficking violations, as well as a variety of money crimes, and probably some drugs. The first point of the exercise is simply to subject them to harassment, force them to penury with legal fees and confiscations, and generally make it a good deal less fun to strut about pretending to be 'sovereign citizens' upholding a Constitution they are wholly at odds with and inimicable to.

[aikoaiko]

11. Maybe we should resurrect the Un-American Activities Committee while we're at it.

We can snag lots of people on unrelated crimes for the purpose of harassment.

:eyes:


I never thought I'd see the day when The Magistate would argue for such political usages of law enforcement.

[The Magistrate]

12. Against Reactionary Scum Like These Creatures, Sir? Law Enforcement Is Well Short Of My Limit....

The various 'militia' movement bodies set themselves up as rebels in arms; the state should treat them as such.

"Sane or mad, rebels hang: Your Excellency knows this."

[aikoaiko]

13. How about we use the rule of law and wait until there is evidence of law breaking

:shrug:

[The Magistrate]

14. These People Are Breaking Laws Against Seditious Conspiracy Already, Sir

They are advocating the armed over-throw of the United States government, and gathering in arms in furtherance of that aim. At this point, the government is pleased not to take them seriously, but that is not the same thing as saying they violate no law. There is a great deal of discretion in the actual application of law by prosecutorial and enforcement organs of government. Their laxity in this matter is a mistake. These people are dangerous.

[aikoaiko]

15. If you show me evidence that THIS group advocates for the armed overthrow of our govt, then..

...I could agree that they deserve to be investigated at least and possibly arrested. Otherwise, your rhetoric is merely hyperbole. A group of people who are unhappy with their govt leaders and who are armed is not a seditious conspiracy.

[The Magistrate]

16. Inform Yourself About The Militia Movement, Sir

This precise group was involved in a major arrest over a decade ago, and has not changed its spots one iota. There are a number of other similarly constituted bodies, sharing the same purpose. This is not political dissent; this is armed rebellion in its early stages. It should be quashed.

"This pretense of not knowing what everyone knows has come to dominate our national discourse."

[aikoaiko]

17. I think you're confusing the Viper Militia with the We the People group.

The OP was about how the two gun toters were apart of the We the People organization and you said they should be arrested for seditious conspiracy. When I asked for evidence you allude to, I think, the Viper Militia. Now it is true that the friend of the AZ AR gun toter, Chris, was brought to the rally and interviewed by someone who supported the Viper Militia, E. Hancock, but thats no evidence that that We the People group are conspriring for an armed takeover.

I'm all for law enforcement doing whatever they have to protect the President, the public, and our government except political oppression and circumventing the rule of law. When there is ACTUAL evidence of wrong doing there should be investigations and when there is enough ACTUAL evidence there should be arrests and prosecution.

Vague insinuations are not enough.

[The Magistrate]

18. Enough Of A Connection, Sir: the Names Mutate Like The Protein Surface Of a Virus

Brace these people closely as any block in an inner city neighborhood is braced routinely, and chargeable offenses will pop out into the light. This is a thing which must be broken, and it is easier to break early than it is to break later. This exchange has continued long enough to require the answer to a particular question from you, Sir: are you a 'right to keep and bear arms' type of the school which holds your personal side-arm is a guarantee or resort against tyrannical government in the United States?

[aikoaiko]

19. That's not how I would describe myself or the purpose of the 2nd Amendment.

But if a government were truly tyrannical and oppressive and where no amount of political action or discourse provided any relief, then I wouldn't blame the oppressed from using prudent, necessary force to defend themselves. Merely losing a political argument is not tyranny.

[The Magistrate]

21. Then How Would You Describe Yourself On The Question Of Armament Under The Second Amendment, Sir?

[aikoaiko]

54. I understand the 2nd Amendment as a protection against unreasonable laws

that would prohibit or undermine the posession and carrying of arms for self-defense (defined broadly).



edited to add: No answer me a question. Would it ever be correct for a people to use force to overcome a truly tyrannical government?

[The Magistrate]

58. Correct, Sir, And Legal, Are Two Different Things

There is story from feudal Japan in a tumultuous year when a soldier on the eve of battle asked his commander if they were rebels, and received the reply: "If we win, we're the loyal army; if we lose, we're the rebel army."

[orleans]

39. how bout this?

"Many others speakers and participants at the We the People conference expressed support for revolution, including bloodletting if necessary. "

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=380

"We The People plans return to Crystal City next year and evaluate the government's response to its cases. And violence remains an option if We The People does not receive satisfaction from the government.

"I agree that it may come to violence," Schultz told the crowd, "but we hope that it won't."

same link as above

[The Magistrate]

41. From Dennis v United States, Sir

"The First Amendment requires that one be permitted to believe what he will. It requires that one be permitted to advocate what he will unless there is a clear and present danger that a substantial public evil will result therefrom."

339 U.S. at 339 U. S. 412. But we further suggested that neither Justice Holmes nor Justice Brandeis ever envisioned that a shorthand phrase should be crystallized into a rigid rule to be applied inflexibly without regard to the circumstances of each case. Speech is not an absolute, above and beyond control by the legislature when its judgment, subject to review here, is that certain kinds of speech are so undesirable as to warrant criminal sanction. Nothing is more certain in modern society than the principle that there are no absolutes, that a name, a phrase, a standard has meaning only when associated with the considerations which gave birth to the nomenclature. See American Communications Assn. v. Douds, 339 U.S. at 339 U. S. 397. To those who would paralyze our Government in the face of impending threat by encasing it in a semantic straitjacket we must reply that all concepts are relative.

In this case, we are squarely presented with the application of the "clear and present danger" test, and must decide what that phrase imports. We first note that many of the cases in which this Court has reversed convictions by use of this or similar tests have been based on the fact that the interest which the State was attempting to protect was itself too insubstantial to warrant restriction of speech. In this category we may put such cases as Schneider v. State, 308 U. S. 147 (1939); Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U. S. 296 (1940); Martin v. Struthers, 319 U. S. 141 (1943); West Virginia Board of Education

Page 341 U. S. 509

v. Barnette, 319 U. S. 624 (1943); Thomas v. Collins, 323 U. S. 516 (1945); Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U. S. 501 (1946); but cf. Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U. S. 158 (1944); Cox v. New Hampshire, 312 U. S. 569 (1941). Overthrow of the Government by force and violence is certainly a substantial enough interest for the Government to limit speech. Indeed, this is the ultimate value of any society, for if a society cannot protect its very structure from armed internal attack, it must follow that no subordinate value can be protected. If, then, this interest may be protected, the literal problem which is presented is what has been meant by the use of the phrase "clear and present danger" of the utterances bringing about the evil within the power of Congress to punish.

Obviously, the words cannot mean that, before the Government may act, it must wait until the putsch is about to be executed, the plans have been laid and the signal is awaited. If Government is aware that a group aiming at its overthrow is attempting to indoctrinate its members and to commit them to a course whereby they will strike when the leaders feel the circumstances permit, action by the Government is required. The argument that there is no need for Government to concern itself, for Government is strong, it possesses ample powers to put down a rebellion, it may defeat the revolution with ease needs no answer. For that is not the question. Certainly an attempt to overthrow the Government by force, even though doomed from the outset because of inadequate numbers or power of the revolutionists, is a sufficient evil for Congress to prevent. The damage which such attempts create both physically and politically to a nation makes it impossible to measure the validity in terms of the probability of success, or the immediacy of a successful attempt. In the instant case, the trial judge charged the jury that they could not convict unless they found that petitioners intended to overthrow the Government

Page 341 U. S. 510

"as speedily as circumstances would permit." This does not mean, and could not properly mean, that they would not strike until there was certainty of success. What was meant was that the revolutionists would strike when they thought the time was ripe. We must therefore reject the contention that success or probability of success is the criterion.


The following portion is from the charge to the jury, which the Court held a proper definition, and cited again approvingly in Yates v. United States as a model:

"In further construction and interpretation of the statute, I charge you that it is not the abstract doctrine of overthrowing or destroying organized government by unlawful means which is denounced by this law, but the teaching and advocacy of action for the accomplishment of that purpose, by language reasonably and ordinarily calculated to incite persons to such action. Accordingly, you cannot find the defendants or any of them guilty of the crime charged

Page 341 U. S. 512

unless you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that they conspired to organize a society, group and assembly of persons who teach and advocate the overthrow or destruction of the Government of the United States by force and violence and to advocate and teach the duty and necessity of overthrowing or destroying the Government of the United States by force and violence, with the intent that such teaching and advocacy be of a rule or principle of action and by language reasonably and ordinarily calculated to incite persons to such action, all with the intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of the Government of the United States by force and violence as speedily as circumstances would permit."

"* * * *"

"If you are satisfied that the evidence establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendants, or any of them, are guilty of a violation of the statute, as I have interpreted it to you, I find as matter of law that there is sufficient danger of a substantive evil that the Congress has a right to prevent to justify the application of the statute under the First Amendment of the Constitution."

"This is matter of law about which you have no concern. It is a finding on a matter of law which I deem essential to support my ruling that the case should be submitted to you to pass upon the guilt or innocence of the defendants. . . ."

[aikoaiko]

46. Hardly evidence for sidicious conspriracy, but perhaps worthy of investigation.

After pleading for a moment to regain his composure, Mancus straightened up and launched into a heated antigovernment tirade.

"If they confiscate the guns, think there will be war. And I hope there will be war instead of letting it happen," bellowed Mancus. "I want to leave this world without killing someone, but I have a bottom line."

"Don't forget," he added darkly, "the government's agents are afraid of dying, too."

Many others speakers and participants at the We the People conference expressed support for revolution, including bloodletting if necessary. Even Bay Buchanan, who said she had earlier spoken to a group at the nearby CPAC conference, gave a fire-breathing talk nearly as heated as Mancus'.

Its pretty clear from the article that this is an if then position basedon the governmental wrong doing first and really isn't different from "by any means necessary" rhetoric of many marginal group.

I don't have a problem with law enforcement keeping an eye on these groups or individuals but calling for arrests claiming siditious conspiracy because of group membership is an overreaction and and wrong.

[The Magistrate]

47. Arrest And Investigation, Sir

All you have said simply amounts to a defense brief, and it is not a convincing one. The test is whether the speech is the teaching and advocacy of action for the violent revolution, by language reasonably and ordinarily calculated to incite persons to such action. The speech employed by these persons meets that test, and is coupled with the bearing of arms, a concrete action displaying seriousness of purpose.

[aikoaiko]

52. And I see nothing that meets that test.

[The Magistrate]

57. That Would Be Up To A Jury, Then, Sir....

[Lagomorph]

59. Geeze, what an asshole.

Come the revolution, you'll be the first against the wall.

We've been fighting the "State" since the 60's, they're ruining us.

Keep Obama, dump the rest.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

24. Is this a joke?

Because, like you, I'm having trouble believing I'm seeing anything like this on DU.

"Seditious conspiracy"?

[The Magistrate]

25. Not In The Least, Ma'am

It is my custom to look at things straight on, and name them plainly. The rightist organizations coming armed to political rallies this summer are engaged in seditious conspiracy to assail the government of the United States, and should be treated as such by the authorities. This sort of thing is not political dissent; it is the early stage of armed insurrection.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

27. I appreciate and share your concern,

but it alarms me when I hear anyone advocating bringing down the full force of the law because people are talking.

No acts have been committed in the furtherance of these theories. They're just talking.

Now, one might say that's very dangerous speech, but I would maintain, as I always have, that dangerous and unpopular speech is the speech that requires the most protection.

I do not want to live in a country where people can be punished because they talked among themselves about the wrong subjects. I am old enough to have vague memories of Joe McCarthy and HUAC, and the kind of police actions you are avowing are reminiscent of those times.

You may see it as "the early stage of political insurrection," but I would remind you that that is how our United States came into being............

[The Magistrate]

29. They Are Not 'Just Talking', Ma'am

They are parading in arms while 'talking' of the desireability, even the duty, of over-throwing the government by violence. That probably crosses the court defined line for "advocates, abets, advises, or teaches" indicated below into criminal territory. The law in question was designed to be used against the C.P.U.S.A., but that is no reason it cannot be turned on these people, who have already done more by way of violence against the government, considered as a political movement, than the C.P.U.S.A. ever managed. When these groups are looked into and broken by the authorities, there are usually sufficient weapons and explosives and similar charge available, so the question of charges under the Smith Act need not arise. But it remains on the books, and would be a very useful tool to crack these things wide open.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

31. That "parading," which I find repugnant and frightening,

is legal.

It crosses no legal line. It's stupid, and it's scary, and to someone like me, it's unfathomable.

But, it's legal, and it's protected.

You're trying to make that display into something that it's not......................

[The Magistrate]

32. Properly Regarded, Ma'am, It Is A Crime, And Should Be Treated As a Crime

It occurs in company with statements and writings teaching the duty and propriety of violent overthrow of the government of the United States, and assassination of officials. The two things taken together, the teaching and the parading under arms, cross the line of simple speech.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

36. OK, now you're not making any sense........

"Properly regarded"?

By whom?

Who decides what "properly regarded" means? You? Me? A committee?

No, you just can't decide that something is illegal because you don't like it. I don't like that these people can even be in the same zip code as our President while they're wearing weapons as if they were some fashion accessory, but that doesn't make it illegal.

If you appreciate the law, and I trust you do, since you're so eager to prosecute some people, I should think you would be respectful of those laws, and not try to corrupt them with vague and inapplicable ideas like "properly regarded." That phrase conjures up for me that same kind of thinking that was in force when blacks had separate water fountains and weren't allowed to ride in the front of the bus. You are attempting to create a whole different class of people with that phrase, and it's scary, because "properly regarded" is a matter of someone's discretion, and, as you state it, if someone doesn't like someone who is doing something perfectly legal, they may invoke the concept of "properly regarded," and bring down the full force of the law on a perfectly innocent citizen.

The law in force currently allows those bozos to wear their weapons in public. Where you came up with "properly regarded," a concept which fails immediately on the grounds of insufferable and absurd vagueness, I have no idea.

But, if you don't like it, you should get to work on getting those laws changed, not try to prosecute the people who are - under full protection of the law - doing something neither of us likes.

You are dead wrong about the idea that "... the teaching and the parading under arms..." crossing any line. They are both, separately and together, perfectly legal and, again, the actors are protected.................

[The Magistrate]

37. Quite The Contrary, Ma'am

The behavior falls within the plain descriptions of the text of the law, and to regard it properly is to regard it in that light. The Supreme Court ruling which set aside convictions of several C.P.U.S.A. members held that they were communicating an ideal without actually taking any steps towards violent overthrow, and that therefore since they simply speaking, they were shielded by the First Amendment. Parading under arms crosses that line, being a concrete act towards violence. These are not perfectly innocent citizens, Ma'am.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

38. You're wrong -

what you so flamingly characterize as "parading under arms" is perfectly legal and not at all a "concrete act towards violence." It is no more any kind of a "concrete act towards violence" than chewing gum while they walk along the street.

You may not like it, but that's how it is, and your theory fails.........................

[The Magistrate]

40. Read Dennis v United States And Yates v United States, Ma'am: They Are The Gist Of the Case Law

The matter seems pretty clear to me....

[bridgit]

42. The 2nd sanctions the brandishing of fire & side arms in the course of silencing all others?

Wow, that's some kind of amendment there. It's a good thing it's not carved in stone

[The Magistrate]

43. The Doctrine Of Civil Liberties, Ma'am, Has Its Fundamentalists Like Any Other Creed

And fundamentalism in any sphere is always badly flawed.

[bridgit]

44. Mm, well I suppose then there is no dither so long as that doctrine remains 'civil'

Brandishing firearms in the course of denying political discussion while offering images of pain, threats, physical harm, even potential death, chips away at what is commonly recognized as 'civil' and *then* there were none...none but the sound of the ricochet, a moan, a crying child a sobbing woman. And I have little interest in cobbling cover from solace for any would-be/wannabe Jeffersonian usurper that generates the stupidity to pull the trigger twixt twixt & tween negative

These amendments which too many so often refer to so blithely are steeped in calls to vigilance, to observance. We fail imo when we are not thus as we were once bid do

[hack89]

45. Look up the legal definition of brandishing

they were not brandishing anything.

[The Magistrate]

48. They Are Violating the Smith Act, Sir, Under the Standard Of Both Decisions Referenced

Whether the government chooses to prosecute or not is a separate question. In my view, the government should prosecute.

This sort of thing should be made a good deal less fun than it is at present, and there is nothing like a paper with United States of America versus your name here to ruin your day, and put a serious damper on the coming weeks and months and years....

[hack89]

49. The Smith act was a RW tool to root out commies and socalists

most of the convictions under it were tossed by the supreme court as unconstitutional.

[The Magistrate]

56. That It Was, Sir, But That Does Not Make It Useless To Us

You would do well to actually read the relevant Supreme Court cases, listed above. You will find your beliefs are in error. The law was upheld as Constitutional; convictions were upheld in Dennis, and thrown out in Yates because the trial court botched two points of applicatoion of the law as upheld in Dennis.

The law remains on the books, just like the Reconstruction era civil rights laws dusted off to prosecute acquitted murders of civil rights workers in the sixties.

[bridgit]

50. Look it up yourself: bran·dish

1. To wave or flourish (a weapon, for example) menacingly.
2. To *display* ostentatiously. See Synonyms:

Synonyms: come on strong, display, disport, exhibit, expose, flash, gesture, parade, raise, shake, show, show off, sport, swing, threaten, throw weight around, trot out, warn, wield, advertise, arrange, bare, betray, boast, brandish, bring to view, demonstrate, disclose, emblazon, evidence, evince, exhibit, expand, expose, extend, feature, flash, flaunt, flourish, glaze, grandstand, illustrate, impart, lay bare, lay out, make clear, make known, manifest, model, open, open out, parade, perform, present, promote, promulgate, publish, represent, reveal, set out, show off, showcase, sport, spread out, stretch out, trot out, uncover, unfold, unfurl, unmask, unroll, unveil, vamp ...

Are you suggesting that these people need-by-law to stuff it up Obama's nose and spin the barrel waving it wildly then in Obama's face so close he can see the bullets in their chambers and that they'll get away with it just so long as they sing The Star Spangled Banner first?

If that's the case then it's a small wonder Dems are bleeding out all over all-things-definition. And...if that is your position then I suppose that is your position, though if that is your position it seems sluggish enough as to be inert in response to a sentinel, clarion call:

in.ert

1. having no inherent power of action, motion, or resistance (opposed to active ): inert matter.
2. Chemistry. having little or no ability to react, as nitrogen that occurs uncombined in the atmosphere.
3. Pharmacology. having no pharmacological action, as the excipient of a pill.
4. inactive or sluggish by habit or nature.

Synonyms: apathetic, asleep, dead, dormant, down, dull, idle, immobile, impassive, impotent, inactive, inanimate, indolent, languid, languorous, lazy, leaden, listless, motionless, numb, paralyzed, passive, phlegmatic, powerless, quiescent, quiet, slack, sleepy, slothful, sluggard, sluggish, slumberous, static, still, stolid, torpid, unmoving, unreactive, unresponsive

Again, and with freedom/liberty & poetic license in tow; I have no interest in cobbling cover from solace for supporters and groupies of Larouche and froggy Ron Paul robots that think *Don't Tread On Me* is a 2nd hand tire shop

I wouldn't recommend anyone just stand there and take a bullet while the inert quibbles the innards of what it is to brandish. They are brandishing at this point in time. They need not discharge a round to complete that thought when they're wearing it on their thighs writ large on placards suggesting even more dire conclusions.

edit 'h' :blush:

[hack89]

51. I meant legal definition - as in go to jail brandishing

if that was not your point then I apologize.

[The Magistrate]

26. Here, By The Way, Ma'am, is The Relevant Law

Sec. 2385. Advocating overthrow of Government

Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or

Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or

Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof--

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.

If two or more persons conspire to commit any offense named in this section, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.

As used in this section, the terms "organizes" and "organize", with respect to any society, group, or assembly of persons, include the recruiting of new members, the forming of new units, and the regrouping or expansion of existing clubs, classes, and other units of such society, group, or assembly of persons.


* * * * *


Case law has established a pretty high hurdle for "advocates, abets, advises, or teaches", and it has been decades since the law was used in court. But these people could certainly be brought to court under it, and likely convicted were the prosecution handled well.....

[Tangerine LaBamba]

28. A shameful law,

as are all conspiracy laws.

I remember a law professor of mine pointing out to us that conspiracy laws are the only ones that punish thought. I have always thought they should not exist, but, there they are, and just because they're on the books doesn't mean the should be applied. Thankfully, that kind of thing always falls within the realm of prosecutorial discretion, but, as I posted just before, that's far too close to the time of Joe McCarthy and HUAC for my comfort.

A high hurdle certainly should be there, but I'd prefer no hurdle at all. None of these horrid thought-punishing laws..............................

[The Magistrate]

30. No, Ma'am, A Proper And Useful Law. In No Time And Place Has Advocating Armed Rebellion Been Legal

That is one of the defining characteristics of whether a state is governed or not, that it possess the power to prevent insurrection.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

34. We disagree,

in that I think punishing thought is a hateful thing.

But your claim that possessing the power to prevent insurrection is "... one of the defining characteristics" of what you call "a governed state" is perfectly applicable to Iran. And North Korea. And other countries where I have no desire to live. I disagree completely with you on that being a "defining characteristic" of any civilized country.

Advocating armed rebellion is how America can into being.

We think very differently about this, and so I'm bowing out.........................

[The Magistrate]

35. My Opinion Of A Government's Propriety, Ma'am, Does Not Affect The Definition

The government of any state is a body of persons claiming, and capable of exercising, a monopoly on the employment of violence for political ends within a specific geographic area. That is the root definition, and it is a very, very old one.

[aikoaiko]

55. Is there evidence that meets the "pretty high hurdle for "advocates, abets, advises, or teaches'' "

Be careful Magistrate. You are fast becoming the John Yoo for the left.

[jwirr]

2. Is this the black man who was carrying an assault weapon in one

picture?

[RamboLiberal]

3. Yes - it's the black man

[frylock]

4. and he's a nativist?!

serial WTF?!!

[RamboLiberal]

9. These 2 dumbasses have their emails right out there

http://www.givemeliberty.org/user/congress/region.aspx?state=az

http://www.givemeliberty.org/user/congress/state.aspx?state=az

A few seconds on google to find. And Chris B lost his beagle back in January. Poor guy.

[Strelnikov_]

20. Appears there is one less 'We The People' dipshit on the streets

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4025731

Tony Schewmaker, the Wells Fargo contractor who hired McAffee, knew him through libertarian-leaning groups such as We The People Foundation for Constitutional Education.

Schewmaker objected to the $50,000 bond amount, saying the steep figure resulted from 4th District Magistrate Judge Kevin Swain's objections to the weapon. Schewmaker also keeps a handgun in his vehicle, in particular for business in isolated, rural areas.3

And we have a finalist for Moran of the Year with this statement:

But Ryan Davidson, another Paul supporter who has gained attention by pushing pro-marijuana voter initiatives in the central Idaho town of Hailey, said McAffee told him a different version of the altercation in a phone call from jail:

Lutes confronted McAffee, becoming increasingly hostile, Davidson said. When Lutes struck McAffee's Ford Escort with his hand, McAffee brandished the weapon to de-escalate the conflict, Davidson said.

Yep. Pulling out a piece is a tried and true way to de-escalate a conflict.

[The Magistrate]

22. These Are Patriots Indeed, Gospodin....

We are looking at people preparing and planning for armed insurrection this summer. It must be checked.

[DFW]

53. Depending on what you mean by "checked," I like that

I do agree that anyone bringing a loaded firearm, not to say assault firearm, to a political rally, especially one where
an elected official is present, is more than an exercise of the freedom to do so. It should be noted that the political
events in question here had nothing to do with the Second Amendment, or else I would have seen a perverse justification
of the displaying of firearms. But they were about health care, a subject to which the presence of firearms does not bring
any relevant input whatsoever.

Armed insurrection is too high a threshold in my opinion for people bringing loaded firearms to what was intended to be
at best a heated discussion over health care. If an individual bringing a loaded firearm to a presidential appearance to
discuss health care is legal, I submit that it is also legal for fifteen local and federal law enforcement officers to
surround him (it's always a "him," isn't it?) with holsters unsnapped for the time he is present. A picture of Obama as
Hitler is a statement. The statement may say more about the stupidity of the person making it than anything else, but it's
not a physical threat to anyone present. A loaded firearm is, insurrection or no insurrection. That such carriers of weapons
at such events have not been tackled by ten others and shot with their own weapons is more a testament to the civilized nature
of the majority, and not to the intimidation value of the man carrying the weapon.

PS--considering who Pasternak's Strelnikov was, I'd say "Tovarishch" would have been more appropriate.

[G_j]

23. can you bring a pitchfork?

:sarcasm:

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our third quarter 2009 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!