Constituents Camaras and Cellphones Confiscated by LEO's
- Thread starter chefdennis
- Start date
The Soapbox favorite past time. Fake Outrage.
If you finds so many of us so stupid and offensive why bother coming in? Your presence is not mandatory. You are welcome but there is no need to constantly insulting either individuals or the entire group. It serves no useful purpose.
AMonger
Veteran Expediter
We would be fools to assume that the pendulum will always swing. Just as you can reach out and stop a clock's pendulum, so can freedom's pendulum be stopped.
Being on my phone, I can't go look up which Founding Father said it, but one of them said, "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect anyone who so much as approaches that precious jewel."
So make no assumptions about freedom returning without the citizenry remaining up in arms. Some of us are making too many assumptions and being complacent, while others, like the D12/13, are actually anti-freedom, as long as the tyrants wear government clothes. It's a mark of good citizenship, in their minds, to be servile.
Heard to imagine someone being worse than Bush, but somehow, Karl Marx Jr. aka Barry Soetoro Hussein Obama had pulled it off. They just keep getting worse and worse. Remember how free we were under Clinton/Reno? Didn't think it could get any worse back then, but they seem like the good old days now.
mcavoy33
Seasoned Expediter
EO is really entertaining.
I think you need to take rants posted on an forum called soapbox a little less seriously. Your post reminds me of this:
I find it entertaining that you judge people that you have never met by some posts on an internet forum that is about ranting.
It says a lot about your character that you judge people without ever knowing them. I'm curious, do you act the same way in real life, do you treat people that way in real life?
For some reason, I highly doubt it. But keep bashing my grammar over and over again if it makes you feel better about yourself trying to belittle me. I don't really care about grammer on the net tbh.
I think you need to take rants posted on an forum called soapbox a little less seriously. Your post reminds me of this:
I find it entertaining that you judge people that you have never met by some posts on an internet forum that is about ranting.
It says a lot about your character that you judge people without ever knowing them. I'm curious, do you act the same way in real life, do you treat people that way in real life?
For some reason, I highly doubt it. But keep bashing my grammar over and over again if it makes you feel better about yourself trying to belittle me. I don't really care about grammer on the net tbh.
mcavoy33
Seasoned Expediter
Back on topic. I think its cool that you believe in what you are posting about and have actually done stuff to support your beliefs. I use to be more active in government & elections when I was younger but I have different interests now for my spare time.
I'm curious though, when you did the things like speak in front of legislative bodies, and other things, did you think you made a difference? Do you think your voice was heard?
Were the groups you were involved with successful in promoting their agenda?
greg334
Veteran Expediter
Patrick Henry;
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."
Bet Obama and Co. hate THAT one! Billery too!
"worthless pos politicians"
I beg to differ. If you add up the salary of a Representative, Congressman, or Senator. Then add up the salaries of their staff and all the perks available to them and their staff. Cafeteria, gym, vehicles, benefits, paid travel.
There fairly costly as opposed to being worthless.
I beg to differ. If you add up the salary of a Representative, Congressman, or Senator. Then add up the salaries of their staff and all the perks available to them and their staff. Cafeteria, gym, vehicles, benefits, paid travel.
There fairly costly as opposed to being worthless.
"worthless pos politicians"
I beg to differ. If you add up the salary of a Representative, Congressman, or Senator. Then add up the salaries of their staff and all the perks available to them and their staff. Cafeteria, gym, vehicles, benefits, paid travel.
There fairly costly as opposed to being worthless.
Money just flushed down the toilet. The ONLY time the country is safe from these people is when they are all on vacation. Nothing from them is FAR better than most of their somethings.
AMonger
Veteran Expediter
After it was introduced, the bill in question looked like a slam dunk. It was a bill banning the carry of guns in the city. Up to that point, guns could be carried as long as they were not concealed. But then there was a shooting and both groups pointed at the other and said, "THEY STARTED IT." At that point, the mayor decided something had to be done.
This was going to be the strictest gun law in the country, with mandatory jail time for so much as bringing a gun out onto your porch. I called into the radio show that was interviewing the mayor as he announced this, and asked what we guards and private detectives and such were going to do. He came up with an answer on the spot about how some licensing plan could be developed. It was obvious that he was speaking off the cuff, that they hadn't even planned for this.
So when I heard that, I made a list of people who would be affected by this, all the guard companies and detectives, and called them all, arranging a meeting at which we planned our strategy. An NRA lawyer came out and coached us on how to present our case to the city council. So when the public meeting took place, we had several people there to speak against it on various grounds.
When the city administration presented their case to the city council, a councilman replied, "We'd like to pass this 7-0." That ****ed me off.
So when I gave my presentation, I was a bit impassioned. The NRA guy said each speech should be limited to 3 minutes, but I went far beyond that. Got an ovation from the crowded council chamber When the vote was taken, it was 7-0, but against, so I'd like to think that I made an impact of some sort.
The rest of the story is that the NRA contacted the city behind the scenes and colluded with them on how to pass it with their help, meaning fun control laws are ok with the NRA as long as they get to help write them. So the city re-introduced the revised bill a few months later, and since the NRA helped write it, they weren't coming down to help rally the troops against it. A bunch of us tore up our membership cards that day.
I was supposed to be organizing an anti-Clinton rally in front of the federal building at the time, too, but I only had time for one fight at a time, so that didn't get done.
mcavoy33
Seasoned Expediter
Thank you for proving my point. That there are much more productive ways to go about making positive changes in societythanbreaking the rules. I'm glad you chose a legal route to make change and didn't go around disputing the changes by running around the streets waving a gun in the air.
Paullid was right to question the motives of the people in the first line of his post.
I'm sorry if it offends you if I respect and value if people take a proactive approach to making change instead of taking a negative and quasi illegal approach toenlisting change.
I stand by my opinion that there wss a far better and more productive way for people to institute change in our society.
I see far too many examples in today's society of criminal's right's being protected which cause harm to the innocent victims in society. It's my personal opinion that you should lose your right's when you are breaking the law.
So I won't feel sorry for these people who chose to go about trying to make change in a negative manner.
If that makes me a bad person in your eyes, so be it. Now if the rights of completely innocent people were trampled on, then that would be a different story.
I'm glad that when it comes to reality you make proactiveand helpful decisions that make positive change but I don't think that judging me and insinuating that I'm the scum of the society because I don't respect people who break the law to enlist change was the best way to make your point in this case.
Tennesseahawk
Veteran Expediter
Respecting those people or not is not the issue. This is NOT a democratic society. We can't make up laws out of thin air because the majority of people (or in this case a congressman) agree to make it so. This is a constitutional republic, which means the congressman is supposed to uphold the Constitution. In this case he is not. That is a treasonous event.
If the protestors got rowdy, or disruptive, they should be escorted out or arrested. Yes, the whole shebang would find its way to youtube. But these are the times we live in. Fear of being embarrassed should go with the territory of being in politics. Don't like it? Don't become part of it. But don't take away my right to tape you in a public event!
mcavoy33
Seasoned Expediter
If that is truly what you believe then do something positive and productive about it. Sitting there calling me names won't advance your issue, it won't get me on your side.
A part of the problem in our society imo is people who don't stand up for what they believe in.
My point is that you will be far more successful in your endeavors if you take a positive and proactive approach you will be far more successful.
Simple communication and utilizing the legal tools available will be far more productive. If the protesters would have communicated their concerns to the congressman prior to the event, it gives the opportunity to the congressman to realize that he is wrong.
you are right he was might have been worried about looking bad but not communicating with him to tell him the error of his ways is equally asdumb.
I agree withe the positive, proactive & legal open comunication approach that AMonger took in his dealings.
Sitting here and yelling treason on the internet seems a little extrem
mcavoy33
Seasoned Expediter
Sorry I got cut off their on my phone.
I was saying yelling trason on the internet seems extreme when a little bit of communication and education would have worked a lot better for everyone involved.
As it stands now, the congressman looks a lot dumber and has taken more flack than he ever could have if he allowed public recordings,.
Why ... Because people wanted to seek attention and make a scene instead of actually being productive.
I was saying yelling trason on the internet seems extreme when a little bit of communication and education would have worked a lot better for everyone involved.
As it stands now, the congressman looks a lot dumber and has taken more flack than he ever could have if he allowed public recordings,.
Why ... Because people wanted to seek attention and make a scene instead of actually being productive.
mcavoy33
Seasoned Expediter
A simple phone call to his office would have avoided the entire problem. He was so focussed on what he was doing that he didn't realize that he was technically trampling on the public's right's.
Do you honestly think if you called him the afternoon before the meeting told him your concerns and told him that you and other civil rights supporters were going to attend the meeting and record it, knowing that the media cameras would be there, do you think he would still trample on your rights?
I don't think he would and that's why I stand by my belief that these protestors went about advancing their stated goal the wrong way. If they took a proactive approach, I don't ever envision their rights being trampled on.
Do you honestly think if you called him the afternoon before the meeting told him your concerns and told him that you and other civil rights supporters were going to attend the meeting and record it, knowing that the media cameras would be there, do you think he would still trample on your rights?
I don't think he would and that's why I stand by my belief that these protestors went about advancing their stated goal the wrong way. If they took a proactive approach, I don't ever envision their rights being trampled on.
Tennesseahawk
Veteran Expediter
Oh he knew what he was doing. You can be sure of that! It's congressmen like him who use the Constitution as toilet paper.
paullud
Veteran Expediter
When I looked at this originally I questioned what had happened because of the site it came from and the group involved. As I stated before I was thinking it might of been an invitation only event where they sent out blind invites in the mail which would give them the right to make their own rules. After I looked into it further I found it was a public event in a public area, this gives them the right to video what they want, it is the same legal basis that is used for security cameras. I think that group was there to be a problem but they were not disturbing anybody or causing a scene, it was a peaceful protest.
Posted with my Droid EO Forum App
Posted with my Droid EO Forum App
tbubster
Seasoned Expediter
There is nothing in the constitution that gives anyone the right to video tape anyone else.There is nothing in the constitution that says anyone public or private can not ban the use of video recording equipment in public mettings.For the most part when it comes to this issue the federal government leaves it up to the states to decide the laws on this.I will post the link again in the state of OHIO what this congressman did is LEGAL like it or not.
Recording Public Meetings and Court Hearings | Citizen Media Law Project
Ohio Recording Law | Citizen Media Law Project
It does not matter if it is a public metting or not the people who hold the meeting are the ones who get to make the rules like it or not.Even if you want to admit it or not by allowing the media to be there and record the meeting he takes away any argument that he violated any open meeting laws.
Recording Public Meetings and Court Hearings | Citizen Media Law Project
Ohio Recording Law | Citizen Media Law Project
It does not matter if it is a public metting or not the people who hold the meeting are the ones who get to make the rules like it or not.Even if you want to admit it or not by allowing the media to be there and record the meeting he takes away any argument that he violated any open meeting laws.
greg334
Veteran Expediter
You got that backwards, the feds don't have the right to limit the states, the states have the right to limit the feds on this and other issues. The feds have taken upon themselves by passing laws and having the SC support them, starting with the communications act of 1934 and the modifications of that act. This was all because the use of the commerce clause was twisted to include radio and telephone regulations.
In reality, like insurance, the feds have a limited amount of power and unless they decide to openly give up that power, we have a constitution that says the states have that power, not the feds.
Nothing in the constitution addresses the rights to privacy, that comes from either laws that have been enacted or court decisions. I have the right to video tape activity around my home for my safety, however I can't point the camera in the direction of my neighbor and record their activity, my safety doesn't trump their privacy.
In reality, like insurance, the feds have a limited amount of power and unless they decide to openly give up that power, we have a constitution that says the states have that power, not the feds.
Nothing in the constitution addresses the rights to privacy, that comes from either laws that have been enacted or court decisions. I have the right to video tape activity around my home for my safety, however I can't point the camera in the direction of my neighbor and record their activity, my safety doesn't trump their privacy.
AMonger
Veteran Expediter
Actually, I didn't prove your point. There are a couple of important differences in the situations.
First, in the fight against the gun bill, that was only a proposed law--a bill. Fighting against that was fighting against something that was not yet the so-called law. So civil disobedience wasn't an issue there.
Second, civil disobedience isn't the operative principle in the case of the cameras, and it would make no difference if it were. The operative principle here is that a law or rule that violates someone's rights is null and void on its face, of no effect and unenforceable. Even the Supreme Court, no friend of civil liberties in most situations, said so in very plain, unambiguous terms. Even someone"educated" in the Public Fool System couldn't mistake what they said.
So when the camera rule was posted, it was of no effect. The people were within their rights to record a public meeting. Period. Every cop who laid hands on someone under those circumstances should have been resisted with force, placed under arrest, and prosecuted.
Now, as to the civil disobedience aspect, how can you say that the protestors, if they were such, deserved what they got? If a "law" is wrong, does someone protesting it deserve punishment, or do they deserve the protection of the people and the law, and then to see their persecutors punished?
In a case like this, say the police wrongfully arrest people and confiscate their cameras. It goes to court. What should happen? The criminal cases against those arrested must be dropped because they're unconstitutional, their property returned, damages paid, and then as soon as the judge says "Case dismissed," his next action should be to order the immediate arrest of the congressman, his staff, and the cops who laid hands on the innocent parties and confiscated their property while they were doing something they had a clear, legal right to do.
How can you possibly think that because a patently unconstitutional rule (not even a so-called law) was posted, that someone violating it deserves what they get for violating it? If that were the case, no one would have any rights or recourse if their rights are violated. Someone with that thinking would have supported the Fugitive Slave Act. The reasoning behind them is the same.
I don't see any way you can argue differently.
Right! And in this case, the criminals are the congressman, his staff, and the cops, for violating peoples' rights under the color of law.
The people who were arrested and had their property illegally confiscated broke no law.
First, it wasn't even purported to be a law, but a rule. Second, if it's unconstitutional, then it's null and void. Third, if there is to be a confiscation, the legal hoops that must be jumped through are the responsibility of the government. The Bill of Rights says that there is a due legal process that must be undergone if the government wants to seize property, and it wasn't followed.
Under your thinking, if the government wanted to hold some meeting under the cloak of secrecy, some meeting that, by law, is open, all they'd have to do is have the meeting, and violate the law by prohibiting attendance or recording equipment. Anybody who objected would be out of luck, wouldn't they? They'd have to sue, and the damage would already be done, meeting already held in secret.
That's why such secrecy can't be allowed in the first place, why those "violating"such orders can't be prosecuted or molested, and those who attempt to do do must be punished, along with those who claim, "Ve verr chust following ze ordnüng, Herr Adjudikator."