Mediaboss Marketing

From Twitter, cropped by Dean Weingarten

U.S.A. -(Ammoland.com)- Writing in the Atlantic, Aaron Tang, Professor of law at the University of California, creates a profoundly misleading comparison of the Second Amendment with a fabricated entitlement to an education.

Tang attempts to make the case that Second Amendment supporters and proponents of a theory the Constitution guarantees a right to an equally funded state education are rough equivalents.

There are minimal similarities in the arguments: a basic right implies a level of supporting rights. You cannot have effective Second Amendment rights without access to ammunition and a place to train. You cannot have an effective right of the press without the ability to own and operate media. You cannot have religious freedom without preventing the government from closing down churches and stopping private choices of conscience.

Tang claims the argument that the right to vote implies the entitlement to a state-funded education is equivalent to the argument by Second Amendment supporters that the enumerated right to keep and bear arms implies the right to have access to firing ranges. From the article:

So what do the gun activists argue? Its worth reproducing this argument from their brief verbatim, with emphasis added to a single word: The right to possess firearms for protection implies a corresponding right to acquire and maintain proficiency in their use after all, the core right to keep and bear arms for self-defense wouldnt mean much without the training and practice that make it effective. The Second Amendment may say nothing about the right to practice at a shooting range of ones choosing, in other words, but that right ought to be recognized implicitly because it is important for an express constitutional right to have full meaning.

Now consider the argument advanced by advocates of a constitutional right to basic literacy. Like gun activists and their right to firearms training, educational-equity advocates recognize that the Constitution says nothing explicit about education. But surely a guarantee of basic literacy skills must be implicit in the document in order for its express rights to have meaning. As the Gary B. complaint puts it, without access to basic literacy skills, citizens cannot engage in knowledgeable and informed voting, cannot exercise their right to engage in political speech under the First Amendment, and cannot enjoy their constitutionally protected access to the judicial system including the retention of an attorney and the receipt of notice sufficient to satisfy due process.

In order to reach this plausible-sounding bit of sophistry, Tang overlooks obvious, blatant differences.

The most obvious and fundamental difference, is no one is claiming the State must pay for Second Amendment training, the creation of ranges, or pay the costs of Second Amendment supporters who use those ranges. The Second Amendment arguments are all about stopping the state from preventing the exercise of Second Amendment rights. The Second Amendment arguments are all about limiting the power of the government to interfere with Second Amendment rights.

An equivalent right to education already exists in the First Amendment, with the right to free speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of religion. The government is not allowed to prevent you from becoming educated.

On the other hand, the proponents of education equality are demanding more power for the state. They are demanding the government provide state-run schools. They are demanding the government take from some taxpayers and give money to other taxpayers, to fund what they demand.

They demand an expansion of government power and authority, exactly the opposite of Second Amendment supporters.

You cannot teach students who are unwilling to learn. Access to basic literary skills already exists. If students want to learn, there are numerous, relatively inexpensive means for them to learn. Parental attitudes are far more important than funding. Some low funded schools produce excellent results and well-educated students. Some high funded schools produce horrible results and poorly educated students. Many students are taught at home, with excellent results.

Government-funded and run ranges are not required to exercise Second Amendment rights. They may be desirable. They are likely useful. They are not required.

Government-funded and run schools are not required for people to be literate and vote. People were literate and voted long before government-funded and run schools became the norm.

The arguments both use the word implied. The arguments have almost no similarity after that.

Federal government funding of schools has far more to do with creating a government-funded propaganda arm for the Democrat party, and funds for the Democrat party via teachers unions, than it has with creating literate citizens.

Government-funded schools may be desirable. They are likely useful. They are not required. Federally funded government schools are a recent development.

Professor Tang creates the illusion of equivalency of arguments with the assumption that a right to freedom from government interference is equivalent to an entitlement to government largess.

The Second Amendment is the protection of a fundamental right enumerated in the Bill of Rights. The Supreme Court has ruled the right existed long before the ratification of the Bill of Rights in 1791. The right to become educated was implicitly protected by the First Amendment. Voting was almost entirely left to the states, with the franchise gradually being expanded more and more and moreover the intervening centuries.

It is an enormous stretch to compare a right implied by a foundational, fundamental, enumerated right, such as the implied right to transport firearms to a range which welcomes you, outside the jurisdiction of your domicile; to an implied entitlement of a right to vote, to have the state pay for the education which you desire, by taking money from another jurisdiction to pay for the education in your jurisdiction.

He states Second Amendment supporters admit there is no explicit mention in the Constitution of the implied right to training.

Then he states the argument of an implicit entitlement of public education is equivalent. It isn't. It does not start with an explicit right. It starts with a claim that an entitlement is required to exercise a right. Exercise of Second Amendment rights does not require an entitlement.

An equivalent for the Second Amendment would be claiming the government must provide everyone with firearms.

There has never been a right to a government-funded education in the United States Constitution. (Some state Constitutions have a right to education in the text, Arizona is one)

There has never been a Constitutional right to government-provided food.

There has never been a Constitutional right to government-provided police protection.

There has never been a Constitutional right to government-provided housing.

There has never been a Constitutional right to government-provided firearms.

There can not be a legal right to those things, because Constitutional rights limit government. They protect you from what the government would do to you.

To say there are Constitutional rights to economic products is to say the government must control the economy and make sure everyone has equal outcomes. Otherwise, the right would not be equal under the law.

A right exists, even if you do not exercise it. Everyone has Second Amendment rights, not just gun owners. Everyone already has the right to seek and obtain an education, protected by the First Amendment, even if they do not exercise that right.

This fundamental misapplication of the word right' requires a fundamental transformation of the structure of government. In essence, it requires the economy to be run by the government, with who gets how much determined by bureaucracies or the courts, instead of from a combination of effort, determination, skill, talent, luck, and, yes, government.

Some redistribution has happened, of course. Redistribution has never been a right. It is a combination of charity and forced redistribution of wealth, to use the force of government to take what would not be given.

Constitutional rights limit what government can do to you. They do not define what governments must do for you. Limiting what the government can do to you does not take resources from someone else.

To equate the arguments for implied Second Amendment rights, which limit what the government is allowed to do, with implied requirements for the government to pay for an education is fundamentally dishonest.

After setting up the argument, by ignoring the direct, obvious differences between a foundational right restricting government, and a demand for more government to take from some, and give to others, Professor Tang makes this statement:

The identical logical structure that underpins these otherwise distinctive arguments presents a puzzle for the Supreme Court. How can it in good faith accept a theory of implied constitutional rights for gun owners only to reject the same argument for schoolchildren? Yet the consensus among close followers is that this is the most likely outcome: Gun-rights activists believe the Court is primed to deliver them a victory in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, while educational-equity advocates recognize that the Courts conservative majority is unlikely to rule in their favor.

They should rule differently. The logical structure is not identical. It is fundamentally different.

The information about the difference is well known in legal circles. It is hard to believe Professor Tang does not understand the theory of natural law and the need to limit governmental power, which is foundational to the entire structure of the Constitution. The federal government is granted significant, but limited powers by the Constitution. The power to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms is not one of those powers.

He rejects that structure. He works hard to replace it with the Progressive construct of a living Constitution; a Constitution meaning only what the current justices are pressured to have it mean at any given moment. Attorney General William P. Barr recently gave a superb speech clarifying the differences in the Progressive vision of expansive government versus the founders' vision of limited government.

The Second Amendment has been infringed in various ways over the history of the United States. Those infringements do not change the foundational right. The Supreme Court has ruled the right to keep and bear arms existed long before the Constitution. The Second Amendment is in place to protect the right, not to create it.

Until 1968, citizens could order anti-tank and anti-aircraft cannons and their ammunition in the mail. Most people, in most places, had easy access to modern firearms, ammunition and ranges.

The Supreme Court is coming out of a long period, during which the words of the Constitution were often ignored, exactly because of the Progressive vision of government Professor Tang is promoting.

An important part of the theory of Progressive governance is the necessity of lying to the population, in order to achieve the objectives the governing elite wishes to enact. This is called manufacturing consent.

The United States is in the process of rejecting that theory, and in restoring a Constitutional government of limited powers.

About Dean Weingarten:

Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of Constitutional Carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.

Read the rest here:
Dishonest Comparisons Between the Second Amendment and Government Funded Education - AmmoLand Shooting Sports News

TheDepartment of Public Safety of Newark, N.J., is warning residents they could be prosecuted for falselyreportingcoronavirus cases in the city.

The citys public safety director, Anthony Ambrose, cautioned Newark residents against posting false information aboutcases on social media, saying it can cause unnecessary public alarm.

Ambrose said in a statementthat the department will investigate and try to identify those making false claims on social media, adding that state laws carry penalties for causingfalse public alarm.

The State of New Jersey has laws regarding causing a false public alarm and we will enforce those laws, Ambrose said. Individuals who make any false or baseless reports about the coronavirus in Newark can set off a domino effect that can result in injury to residents and visitors and affect schools, houses of worship, businesses and entire neighborhoods, he added.

Public Safety Director Ambrose warns against false reporting of coronavirus in Newark via social media https://t.co/U1fS0RALHu via @Nextdoor pic.twitter.com/m75Y2CuB8L

Some on social media criticized the announcement, saying it violates the First Amendment.

The coronavirushas infected more than 1,000 people in the U.S. and killed at least 29.

The global outbreak is affecting the worlds economy and causing many events to be canceled, including sports competitions and political rallies. Several events, like the next Democratic debate, will occur without a live audience.Schools and universities are also canceling classes or moving them online.

View post:
Newark warns of criminal prosecution for 'false reporting of coronavirus' | TheHill - The Hill

Federal law makes it a felony for any person "for the purpose of commercial advantage or financial gain" to encourage or induce an undocumented alien to illegally enter or remain in the United States. On February 25, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in a case, United States v. Sineneng-Smith, which asks whether that sweeping prohibition should be struck down as an unconstitutional infringement on protected speech.

It should. Applied on its face, the federal prohibition against encouraging illegal immigration for financial gain criminalizes a wide range of lawful speech. For example, let's say that a self-described advocate of open borders writes a book urging civil disobedience in the face of what that author sees as America's unjust immigration regime. The book explicitly advises all undocumented immigrants to remain in the United States, to speak out, and to fight for their rights.

Would the sale of such a book encourage the unlawful presence of undocumented immigrants for financial gain? Clearly it would. But the First Amendment would just as clearly protect the author's liberty to write and sell such a book without facing federal charges.

Here's another example of how the law at issue criminalizes constitutionally protected speech. As the lawyers for Evelyn Sineneng-Smith point out in their brief to the Supreme Court, "the government admits telling a district court that it could use the encouragement provision to prosecute an immigration attorney for advising an undocumented client to stay in the country, and notably does not disavow that position in its brief."

Needless to say, there are plenty of good reasons why an immigration attorney might offer such legal advice. Perhaps the undocumented client has a compelling case and the lawyer believes there's a strong chance of persuading federal authorities to alter the client's legal status. The law at issue, however, makes it illegal for the lawyer to speak and act professionally in such matters.

Sineneng-Smith, the operator of an immigration consulting firm in San Jose, California, was convicted in 2010 on multiple counts of violating the law. Her position is that the law is unconstitutional on its face, not merely that it is unconstitutional as applied to her.

As the Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized, the Constitution frowns upon "overbroad laws that chill speech within the First Amendment's vast and privileged sphere." The overbroad law at the center of U.S. v. Sineneng-Smith fits that description.

Read more here:
The First Amendment Right To Encourage Illegal Immigration - Reason

The San Francisco Giants will be organizing a reunion of their 2010 World Series Championship team in August, without Aubrey Huff. Huff, who played a large role in the championship win, was unanimously left off the invite list due to bigoted and misogynistic comments hes made on social media.

First reported by The Athletic, the Giants confirmed that Huff would not be invited to the teams reunion, saying, Aubrey has made multiple comments on social media that are unacceptable and run counter to the values of our organization.

For reference, there was the time Huff tweeted about kidnapping Iranian women and the time he seemed to be advocating for a violent uprising in the event Donald Trump didnt win the 2020 election. Huff has also criticized the Giants first female coach Alyssa Nakken, saying, I dont believe a woman should be in mens pro sports Theres so many more people, especially men, who grind it out who deserve that spot more than she does.

Its not a huge surprise that the club, when celebrating one of their brightest moments in franchise history, would not want a guy like that around.

Huff, who initially said he was quite frankly, shocked. Disappointed about the decision posted a longer statement on Twitter on Monday night, alleging that the Giants were in fact attacking his First Amendment rights, persecuting him for his political beliefs, and, by association, doing nothing less than tearing at the fabric of our democratic process.

We live in a country that is under attack Huff, a vocal Trump supporter, wrote in his statement. Society is desperatly trying to take away our 1st amendment, our freedom of speech and our freedom of political associationWhile Im disappointed the Giants are so opposed to President Trump, and our constitutional rights that theyd uninvite me to my teams reunion, it shows me now more than ever we have to stand up for our 1st amendment rights. Otherwise the America we know and love is already dead.

To be clear, the Giants iterated via the Athletic that Huffs exclusion from the event was based purely on his vile social media behavior, and had nothing to do with his political beliefs.

Whats also clear from Huffs statement, aside from casting himself here as the victim, is that he has no idea what the First Amendment actually promises. For claritys sake, the amendment says, 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.

Its right there in the first word. Congress.

The first amendment says the government can make no law abridging free speech. It doesnt mean that people who say dumb, hurtful, crude things on Twitter wont suffer personal consequences. Huffs been able to say whatever he wants for some time now, a right that he exercises all the time. The government has never stepped in and deprived him of his ability to be awful online, and so far, neither has a platform like Twitter. All Huff is suffering from is the consequences of his own actions. Being vocal on social media and having a large platform also means there will be plenty of people who dont agree with your views, especially when those views are highly derogatory towards women.

Its laughable that being excluded from a private event by his former employer would be equal to a violation of Huffs constitutional rights. Those rights guarantee a whole host of freedoms that Huff readily enjoys. Huff seems to think that his political beliefs are why hes being uninvited to the celebration, when the truth is frankly far simpler, though probably harder for him to swallow. Its not his politics that his former teammates cant stand, its him.

Go here to read the rest:
Aubrey Huff has no idea what the First Amendment really means - For The Win

Sanctioning lies infringes upon U.S. citizens right to free speech, journalist and legal scholar Garrett Epps said at an event Wednesday.

The event, titled The Right to Lie, was hosted by the Free Speech Project and the Georgetown University Lecture Fund. The Free Speech Project, a student- and faculty-run nonpartisan initiative that works to assess free speech across the United States, hosts monthly discussions on campus on topics concerning free speech.

Whether the government should be able to restrict free speech it deems false or defamatory is an especially relevant question given the rise of social media, according to Epps. Social media has created greater platforms for all perspectives, including those that are not truthful, Epps said.

A lot of people began to think, Well, you know, we need to look very carefully at what is allowed and what isnt allowed, Epps said. And were still dealing with that question, and were dealing with it in a very complicated, fast-moving and in many ways maligned media landscape that nobodys really prepared for.

President Donald Trump has used social media to tweet 3,083 false or misleading statements between the start of his presidency and January of this year, according to The Washington Post. Such statistics raise the question of whether false speech should be regulated, according to Epps.

While people should continue to discuss concerns regarding the proliferation of false speech and possible ways to address this issue, allowing the government to decide what should be considered false speech will only lead to an abuse of power, according to Epps.

You dont want the government coming in and deciding this is true and this is false; or this is too rude, you cant say that; or this is too inflammatory, you cant say that. Because history shows us that governments who have that power inevitably will abuse it, Epps said. And either just abuse it in the sense of being just sort of heedlessly bureaucratic or deliberately attempting to skew and suppress criticism of the government and points of view that it finds to be inimical.

People who argue the law should not protect false speech are primarily concerned with defamation, according to Epps.

We dont want to live in a society where theres no boundaries on what people can say, Epps said. The idea that we dont protect false statements of fact that injure peoples reputation and the law of defamation is very old; its very highly developed. We know how to assess when someone has suffered damage as a result of false and defamatory statements about them.

However, while the precedents set by defamation laws do condemn some false speech, they do not imply the government has the right to suppress any speech it deems false, Epps said.

Out of that enormous well of case law, going back well before the settlement of the New World, we have this proposition that falsity, false and defamatory speech, has no value at all, Epps said. But that doesnt create, as its quoted, a general principle that if something is false, government can suppress it.

Epps has been a professor of law at the University of Baltimore Law School since 2008, where he teaches Constitutional Law and First Amendment and specializes in constitutional law.

U.S. citizens and policymakers should not become complacent with current free speech laws and instead should constantly reevaluate and reexamine them, according to Epps.

If you bring in someone like myself who makes his living teaching the First Amendment, you are very likely to have someone tell you that weve struck the appropriate balance, so, you know, the American law of free speech is great, Epps said. I dont know that I want to take that position because I think that any regimen of free speech has benefits and it has costs, and we are constantly reassessing what the costs are.

More here:
Sanctioning All Lies Violates 1st Amendment, Speaker Says - Georgetown University The Hoya