Mediaboss Marketing

"The Framers ... conferred, as against the Government, the right to be let alone -- the most comprehensive of rights, and the right most valued by civilized men." -- Justice Louis Brandeis (1856-1941)

While we were all consumed by impeachment, a pernicious piece of legislation was slowly and silently making its way through Congress. It is a renewal of Section 215 of the Patriot Act.

The Patriot Act of 2001 has three sections that are scheduled to expire on March 15. One of those sections is the infamous 215, which authorizedthe federal government to capture without a warrant all records of all people in America held by third parties.

Do we really want the federal government to spy without warrants? How can Congress, which has sworn to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, legislate such a blatant violation of it? Here is the backstory.

HOUSE REPUBLICANS BOYCOTT INTEL HEARING, ACCUSE SCHIFF OF IGNORING FISA ABUSE

After the Constitution was ratified in 1789, it was soon amended to recognize the existence of natural rights and to keep the government from interfering with them. As Brandeis wrote 140 years afterward, the most comprehensive of those rights was the right to be let alone, which today we call privacy.

To secure that right, the Fourth Amendment was ratified. The purpose of the Fourth Amendment was to prevent the government from utilizing general warrants and to require judicially authorized search warrants issued under narrow circumstances. James Madison, who drafted the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, shared the hatred that colonists-turned-Americans had for general warrants.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE OPINION NEWSLETTER

A general warrant was a document issued by a secret court in London authorizing the bearer of the document, usually a British soldier or intelligence agent, to search wherever he wished and to seize whatever he found. The applicant for the warrant needed to demonstrate to the court only that the warrant was intended to unearth something that the government wanted. Because these warrants did not specify the object of the search, there was no limit to them.

Hence Madison's language in the Fourth Amendment preserving privacy but permitting the government to invade it only upon a showing, under oath, of probable cause of crime, and then requiring the warrant to specify in writing the place to be searched or the person or thing to be seized.

After 9/11, in the collective spirit of fear, timidity and subservience to the presidency, and in utter disregard for its members' oaths to uphold the Constitution, Congress enacted the Patriot Act. It permits one federal agent to authorize another federal agent to search and seize whatever the latter wishes to look at and capture so long as it is in the possession of third-party financial institutions.

Over the years, the definition of financial institution has been radically expanded by both legislation and presidential executive orders so as to include nearly every conceivable entity that has any records about any person in America -- from banks to hospitals to lawyers to merchants to credit card issuers to telecoms and computer service providers and even the post office.

At the same time that the Patriot Act was being expanded, the National Security Agency -- America's 60,000-person-strong domestic spy apparatus -- was not even pretending to follow legislation.

We know from Edward Snowdens revelations -- which have never been disputed by the government -- that since 2003, the NSA has captured not only the records of Americans held by third parties but also the records of every keystroke touched by every person in America and every telephone call transmitted over fiber optic cable. That includes every email, text message and piece of data -- even what was deleted. This warrantless mass surveillance continues today unabated.

Also unabated and equally unlawful and unconstitutional is the governments use of cell towers as monitors of movement. Whenever anyone travels with a mobile device in the U.S., the nearest cell tower picks up signals from the mobile device, even turned off. The government, which either owns the cell towers or, under Section 215, may captureall the data the towers amass, can effectively follow any person with a mobile device in real-time.

How does the government get away with this?

The feds have labored mightily to keep all of these constitutional violations as far from judicial scrutiny as they can. They rightly fear -- they know -- that all of this violates the Fourth Amendment.

If their nefarious behavior, which we know they have used on the president of the United States and on the Supreme Court, comes under judicial scrutiny, the feds will argue that the Fourth Amendment only pertains to criminal prosecutions and not to domestic spying; thus, they can ignore it when they spy.

They have made up this argument out of thin air. There is neither a hint in the language of the amendment nor a whiff in its history to support that argument.

Has the government lost sight of our birthright? It is life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness -- not to mention getting into heaven. How can we do any of this if the government we have hired to preserve our liberty is surreptitiously destroying it?

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Brandeis' language about being let alone was written in 1928, in a dissent to a Supreme Court opinion that failed to recognize the right to privacy. Today, his dissent is the law of the land, but the feds ignore it.He wrote that there is more to life than owning material goods. There is the fulfillment of spiritual, intellectual and cultural goals and the achievement of intimate aspirations, none of which are the government's business.

Why do we permit the government to assault our most basic freedoms, under the law or under the table?

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE BY JUDGE ANDREW NAPOLITANO

Visit link:
Judge Andrew Napolitano: Government is spying on us without warrants, in violation of Constitution - Fox News

Join the Star City Thinkers discussions.

We the people have rights given by the Constitution and laws of the land. Owners of producing property, including the providers of high tech products, have rights given by the Constitution and laws of the land. BUT now as in the past laws need to be changed and interpretations of the Constitution may need to change OR the Constitution, itself, may need to be changed.

We will complete a short review of Net Neutrality whereas, there is a conflict between the property rights of original providers and those businesses who wish to hitch a ride on the train; as well as, issues of what is best for the consumers. See ProCon.org link below.

We will then look at 4th amendment issues where there is conflict with privacy issues. See Heritage Foundation link below.

KEY REVIEW MATERIAL:

Should Net Neutrality Be Restored? - Top 3 Pros and Cons

https://www.procon.org/headline.php?headlineID=005390

The Fourth Amendment and New Technologies

https://www.heritage.org/report/the-fourth-amendment-and-new-technologies

Original post:
Property, Privacy and New Technology - Roanoker

Photo: Gage Skidmorecourtesy Flickr underCreative Commons CC BY-SA 2.0

Clips from a 2015 speech Michael Bloomberg gave at the Aspen Institute should be playing on mainstream news channels just as often as Bloombergs campaign ads.

95 percent of your murdersmurderers and murder victims fit one M.O. You can just take the description, Xerox it, and pass it out to all the cops, Bloomberg said. They are male, minorities, 16to 25. Thats true in New York. Thats true in virtually every city. And the way you get the guns out of the kids hands is to throw them up against the walland frisk them.

Bloomberg also said, And then they start Oh, I dont want to get caught, so they dont bring the gun. They still have a gun, but they leave it at home.

Such is the tough New York talk Bloomberg uses in safe spaces like Aspen.

If you can stop them from getting murdered, I would argue everything else you do is less important, Bloomberg said. And thats a good point, but it comes with a deceptive premise he expects us to buy into. Bloomberg, you see, often argued that the stop-and-frisk policy New York City used while he was mayor was necessary, and there is little doubt it saved lives in New York Citys toughest neighborhoods. But the thing is, when you take away one constitutional rightin this case, our Second Amendment right to keep and bear armsyou end up in a position in which you need to diminish another constitutional rightin this case, the Fourth Amendment right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizuresin order to keep people safe.

Bloombergs associates knew what he said at the Aspen Institute wasnt politically correct; as a result, after he gave the speech, representatives for Bloombergs team actually asked the Aspen Institute not to let people hear or see the video footage,according to the Aspen Times.

Bloomberg might be the $61 billion man, but buying an election in a free society still means controlling your image. In this case, however, the audio leaked out.

As this just isnt a position todays Democrats favor, just before Bloomberg entered the race for president last November he tried to sidestep his record. I cant change history. Today, I want you to know that I realize back then I was wrong, and I am sorry, said Bloomberg, referring to the stop-and-frisk policy hed bragged about just a few years before.

To put this in context, Bloomberg, when he was mayor of New York City, tried to be one of the common folk by riding the subway to work (in this case, City Hall), but, regardless, its a safe bet that he was never stopped and friskedmayors, especially those with security details, just dont get that treatment.

It is also a safe bet that he never needed a self-defense gun, as security details are paid to handle all that.

Now Bloomberg is running for president. If he somehow wins the presidency, the first thing hed like to do is disarm every average American citizen. He mistrusts the individual American so much that he doesnt even think the everyday hero named Jack Wilson, a concealed-carry permit holder and member of the West Freeway Church of Christ in White Settlement, Texas, who stopped a murderer, should have the right to carry a self-defense gun.

Its the job of law enforcement to have guns and to decide when to shoot. You just do not want the average citizen carrying a gun in a crowded place, said Bloomberg just after Wilson had saved lives in that church.

Presidential races are filled with hyperbole and pageantry, but its revealing things like these statements from Bloomberg that build or destroy candidacies.

Continued here:
Bloomberg Said What About Guns and Crime? - America's 1st Freedom

Feb 13th 2020

GENES CAN tell tales about you, from who your ancestors were to how likely you are to develop a range of diseases. And it seems probable that in the future they will tell more: your personality type, perhaps, or your intelligence. For these reasons, many countries have laws limiting what use employers and insurance companies can make of such information. America, for example, has the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, which makes it illegal for health insurers and employers to use genetic information to discriminate against customers and employees.

There is much, however, that genes cannot reveal. They are blind to what you eat, how you exercise, how safe the place you live in is, how you unwind at the end of the day and which god you worship. Just as well, you might think, considering how easy it is to obtain samples of DNA from saliva, sweat or hair, and how cheap it is becoming to analyse such samples. But it is not just DNA that people scatter to the wind as they go about their business. They shed a whole range of other chemicals as well, in their breath, their urine, their faeces and their sweat. Collectively, and somewhat inaccurately, these molecules are referred to as metabolites. Some truly are the products of metabolic activity within peoples bodies. Others are substances an individual has come into contact with, or consumed or inhaled. All, though, carry information of one sort or another.

Until recently this did not matter much, for two reasons. One was that, in practice, taking samples for analysis required either voluntary collaboration or legal duress. It could not be done clandestinely. The other was that interpreting the complicated patterns of metabolites is hard. But both of these obstacles are now being overcome.

The most common way of analysing metabolite content is gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. This technique sorts molecules by their weight, producing a pattern of peaks that correspond to different substances. But the same weight can be shared by many molecules, so the results may be ambiguous. Nor, even if a molecule can be identified unambiguously, is its wider significance always obvious to a particular investigator.

There are, however, a lot of information sources out there, in the form of publicly available metabolite databases. And last year a team led by Pieter Dorrestein of University of California, San Diego, invented a way, which they call a metabolite search engine, of linking them up so that a sample can be compared simultaneously with the contents of all of them.

The databases themselves are getting better, too. According to Dr Dorrestein, researchers in the field were able, as recently as four years ago, to identify only 2% of the metabolites found in samples. Today, that has increased to 6% and is climbing quickly. It is reasonable, he says, to assume that in another four years we will be able to annotate 20% of the molecular signatures that we encounter, based on the advances that are being made.

Another area of progress is the type, size and state of preservation of samples that can be interrogated. No longer are blood, urine or breath required. Sweat, tears, saliva and even dental plaque will do. A study just published by Feliciano Priego-Capote at University of Cordoba, in Spain, for example, shows it is possible to extract much meaningful information from even a dried-up drop of sweatindeed, Dr Priego-Capote is able to find in dried sweat substances that are undetectable at the moment in fresh perspiration.

Such information can reveal a lot. Your god? Regular exposure to burning incense, and thus frequent visits to a church that uses it, will be detectable from the chemicals in the smoke. Not a Christian? Kosher and halal diets are detectable by the absence of metabolites from certain foodstuffs those diets forbid. Your out-of-office activities? Habits like drinking, smoking and narcotic use are visible as numerous chemicalsnot merely the active pharmaceuticals which produce the relevant high or low. Your exercise levels? These are flagged up by lower than normal levels of things like leucine, glycerol and phenylalanine. Your local environment? Breathing in polluted air has a marked impact on the profile of your metabolites. Your general health? Illnesses ranging from Parkinsons disease (altered levels of tyrosine and tryptophan) to diabetes (sugars and sphingomyelin) leave abundant metabolic traces. The day is coming soon, observes Cecil Lewis, a molecular anthropologist at University of Oklahoma, who is studying the matter, when it will be possible to swab a persons desk, steering wheel or phone and determine a wide range of incredibly private things about them.

In contrast with DNA, the use to which knowledge of metabolites might be put has little legal restriction. Dr Lewis, and others like him, worry about the consequences of this. At the moment, sampling for alcohol or illegal drug use, say, has to be overt, because it involves a blood, urine or breath test. That is true regardless of who is collecting the sample, whether it be the police or an employer. This also keeps purposes clear. A firm might feel it has the right to test employees for drug use, and the law might support that. But techniques like Dr Priego-Capotes make it easier, as Dr Lewis observes, to sample clandestinely, and bring a temptation to push back the boundaries of what is being searched for. They would, for example, allow companies to detect, if they chose to look, such private matters as whether an employee was taking antidepressants.

Metabolite data, even the sort obtained openly, will also be of interest to medical-insurance companies, who may insist on the provision of samples as a condition of the provision of cover. They, too, might take an interest in matters of diet and exercise, penalising those who do not conform to prescribed healthy regimes.

The police may be tempted to push the boundaries as well. The fourth amendment to Americas constitution protects against unwarranted searches and seizure of evidence. This means it is hard to force someone to give a sample. But if obtaining such merely requires taking a swab of a surface in a public placeperhaps a keyboard someone has just usedthe amendment is unlikely to apply.

That is not necessarily wrong, if it means more criminals are caught and convicted. But it needs to be thought about carefully, because many metabolites are sticky. Cocaine is a case in point. Studies have shown that as many as two-thirds of the dollar bills in circulation in America carry traces of this substance, which might thus end up on the fingertips of the innocent, as well as the guilty.

Perversely, this might even help someone who really had taken the drug. The law in many jurisdictions permits employers to fire employees for unlawful conduct, even if it happens outside the workplace. But as Michelle Terry of WKS Law in Los Angeles, observes, given how sticky research has shown cocaine metabolites to be, it is hard to guess how the courts would rule if someone lost their job for testing positive, yet claimed never knowingly to have touched the stuff.

This article appeared in the Science and technology section of the print edition under the headline "Shed-loads of chemicals"

See the article here:
People leave molecular wakes that may give away their secrets - The Economist

Share

Share

Share

Email

September 1, 2019 quietly passed for many of New Jerseys citizens. The day-to-day operations and ins and outs of living in the Garden State serves our legislature and executive branch quite well. That is, people are struggling to pay their taxes. The public transit light rail system is a joke. Commuting to a job is a hassle, no matter where one lives. Soccer for Johnny and Jane anyone? By the time Mr. & Mrs. New Jersey settle down at home in their evenings, the last thing that is going to be on their mind is something called Extreme Risk Protective Orders, or ERPOs for short, never mind it being law.

There is a silent and not so silent population of gun owners in New Jersey. The not so silent ones can be found protesting at Trenton, getting involved in recall elections, heading lawsuits against the government, so on and so forth. The silent population of gun owners in New Jersey are silent, and why they are silent should chill every citizen of New Jersey, regardless of political affiliation.

We need to establish some ground rules here, firearms and the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution belongs to every law-abiding legal citizen and legal alien. You dont have to be a Republican to own, use, and or like firearms. And, just because you are a Democrat, that does not mean you have to hate firearms.

The New Jersey legislature, executive branch, and judicial branch would disagree with that. Murphy, his administration, and our current majority Democrat Assembly and Senate made ERPOs what they are, the law.

The fact is there are many closet gun owners in New Jersey because we live in a hoplophobic (irrational fear of guns) society in the Garden State. In short, should someone reveal they are a gun owner in NJ, they face possible issues with losing their job, being ostracized by family and friends, and now, the repercussions could be much worse. We live in a time where swatting is a thingand the ERPOs leave a legal avenue for gun confiscation, which is ripe for abuse.

What is an ERPO? In short, an Extreme Risk Protective Order is a vehicle that an individual can use to have firearms seized from someone else, on a temporary or permanent basis. The idea is the individual would be considered a danger to themselves or others. In New Jersey, a petitioner could be a family member, a household member, or a police officer. The petitioner would apply to a court that someones guns should be seized, by swearing under oath or supplying a written affidavit. For example:

A mother is worried about some things her adult son has been saying. She has reason to believe that he may be suicidal. Knowing that her son has firearms, she applies for a ERPO to have his firearms seized. Should the judge find the mothers story compelling enough, the police show up at her sons home, unannounced, and they take all his firearms.

This is a win, no? It could be. Look at the multiple failures that lead to the Parkland shooting in Florida, where the actor should have been institutionalized based on the signs. Continuing on with our story:

The police do seize the sons firearms, without an issue. Eventually the temporary ERPO becomes a permanent one. The son is deranged and does need help. He is suicidal. The son slits his wrists in his bathtub and dies from his self-inflicted wounds.

What New Jersey does not tell you is that they dont do anything to help any of the people who get their guns seized. They are deemed a threat and or danger, have their guns taken, and are cut free to go forward with whatever mayhem they want to, however else they want, just without a gun. What is the message? We think you have issues, so were gonna take your guns, but not help you through this time. This is no different from the failed restraining order system we have in place. The same system that lead to the murder-suicide of Ruth Reyes Severino and her children here in New Jersey, and the murder of Carol Bowne.

None of this is to marginalize the threat of unstable people and violence. If you feel you are in danger, and or a friend, family member, neighbor etc. is a danger to society or themselves, call 9-1-1.Much quicker than applying to a court for any of these nonsensical pieces of paper. Think about that.

On or around February 8, 2020, the Howell Township Police department got a call describing a minivan of people with one of them waving a gun out the window. The police tracked down the minivan and found all occupants to be legal gun owners. The firearms were being stored beyond what New Jersey Statute deems necessary. The occupants were on their way to the shooting range. This is a prime example of someone trying to get at someone else. Whatever the back-story is here, an individual decided to use the fact that someone else was a gun owner against them. And it worked, for a small time. Luckily, the Howell Police are looking into the matter against the caller for making a false report.

The biggest issue with ERPOs is there is absolutely no due process. ERPOs violate the Fourth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution, as well as Article I Paragraph 7 of the New Jersey Constitution. In the case dealing with the minivan full of guys headed to the range, they were given their due process. An investigation happened, and the Police saw no charges should be brought, as they were not breaking the law. Super-size that nowConsider the same complainant going to the police department requesting they issue an ERPO against the minivan guy, stating he was threatening and menacing him. Complainant signs an affidavit full of all the violent behavior minivan guy allegedly exhibited towards him and next thing you know, a no-nock search warrant is being executed. Minivan guy loses his guns until he gets his day in court. In the meantime, minivan guy lost his right to self-protection and any prospects of engaging in any firearms related activities.

Now, as a society, we all need to think of the implications of this. What if there is a bitter divorce going on? Could this be used against one of the people in the divorce? What if two neighbors have beef with each other? Could a neighbor petition the police to execute one of these? Use your imagination, because it has happened in the past and is happening now. The difference is, in the past, full investigations had to take place before any action was taken against someone.

If you called the police and there was a legitimate problem, they took the persons guns, after an investigation. Now, simply signing a paper can cause a whole slew of headaches for someone, just because.

Recently a gentleman had an ERPO levied against him because he left a bad review for his physician on a website. There is a lot to that story that is not getting out in mainstream media, and its not about to be transcribed here because a tort happy doctor is involved (but if you are so inclined, this podcast episode talks about it). Some of the ERPOs executed have turned deadly, as was the case of Gary J. Willis.

There is now a case that has sprung up. On September 5, 2019, days after the new law came into effect; an ERPO was executed on David M. Greco. The complaint came from a police department. The complaint also lacked signatures from any actual complainant. Apparently, the department, not an actual officer (as outlined as an individual that can request an EPRO) was asking for this order. The petition cites an unidentified person at the FBI and it stated:

Information was recently obtained through FBI contacts, that David Greco is involved in online anti-Semitism. Greco was found to be in contact with the Pittsburgh synagogue shooter, before the mass shootings in both Ohio and El Paso. Precautions were taken and contact was made with Greco in coordination with the FBI. Officers reached out to Greco in regards to recent posts in the social media site gab.com. All previous social media accounts were blocked due to the nature of content. While talking to Greco, he appeared extremely intelligent to officer and did not mention acting on any violent behavior towards Jes. His behavior was methodical and focused on facts

In response to the complaint, Grecos attorney Albert J. Rescinio states:

First as to the underlying factsthese facts are alleged. The actual true facts are different than what they put in the application for the TERPO which was required to be signed by an individual but was not signed by anyone in violation of the ERPO act.

There are two things going on here. First and foremost, as a matter of opinion, Grecos anti-Semitism is not something I agree with. This is not something to subscribe to. However, it is his right to be anti-Semitic, no matter how much anyone wants to say its not. Greco is allowed to post these views on social media. Greco is allowed to spew whatever anti-Semitic nonsensical garbage as he wants to. Greco is allowed to be a bigot and expose himself as such in any manner he wishes. As long as someone is not inciting or advocating violence, guess what, this ugly language and these disgusting views are allowed. Had Greco been a real threat, he would be in a custodial situation, not just have had his guns seized. Think about that. The second part here is, watch out, your social media posts can land you in hot water! This case is an infringement on both the 2nd Amendment and has a chilling effect on the 1st Amendment.

Further from Rescinio:

this is an issue of First Amendment rights. They are going after him because they do not like what he has to say. They have acknowledged in writing that he never threatened anyone but yet asked for the TERPO anyway. Also some of the statements that they made that he was in contact with the Pittsburgh shooter is not accurate. They make it sound like he knew this individual when he has made it clear that he did not know the individual nor did he agree with what the individual did.

Gerco has taken to the courts and is suing the State. David M. Greco, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated V. Gubir S. Grewal, New Jersey Attorney General, et.al. was filed as Civil Action No. 3:19-cv-19145-BRM-TJB in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, Newark Vicinage as a class action suit. According to information from the Attorney General, approximately 1 to 2 ERPOs have been executed in New Jersey per day since the law came into effect. This is a class action for sure. According to Grecos attorney, the rate of EPROs being issued is approximately 1.5 per day.

How does this really affect you? Depending on your views of our freedoms in this country and how they are handled or mishandled, this may not affect you at all. When the subject of ERPOs was brought up, gun rights groups approached the lawmakers to make sure additions to the law included harsh penalties for people that make false statements. No such provision were included in the law, which should lead EVERY citizen in New Jersey to question the motives of the lawmakers and administration. Why should there not be specific and harsh penalties to keep people from abusing this?

On January 20, 2020 over 22,000 citizens descended upon the Virginia capitol. Gun owners from all over the state and country were there to protest the prospect of potential gun control laws. Of the 22,000 about 15,000 were openly armed. Not a single incident took place, this was a peaceful protest. Virginias State legislature recently switched to a majority Democrat control. Monies supplied by Bloomberg and the ilk of his red shirt wearing comrades, were pumped into these races in the 2019 election, and its time to pay the piper by enacting gun control.

Have you heard about sanctuary cities? That is, cities or municipalities that have resolved to not follow federal immigration laws. The subject is now coming to a boiling point and federal charges are going to be levied against the leadership of these municipalities. In lock step, the gun rights community, on a grass roots level, has decided to make sanctuaries of their own. Virginia currently has over 100 cities and counties that have passed 2nd Amendment Sanctuary resolutions, communicating to the State, Country, and World at large, that they do not condone or agree with further restrictions to their rights. This revolution is spreading to other states including New Jersey.

What does Virginia have to do with New Jersey? If you were to compare the gun control laws between New Jersey and Virginia, you will see that the two states deal with this topic very differently in the past that is. New Jersey is onerous and very unfriendly towards guns and gun owners. Not only that, the citizens of New Jersey are so stuck in a Stockholm syndrome, that they too have ingested much of the false rhetoric of the antigun machine. Our comrades in those red shirts funded by Bloomberg spew falsehoods upon open ears and cite things like gun safety, but not a single time has anyone heard these groups actually teach gun safety. Virginia, on the other hand, is comprised of many citizens that not only own firearms, but carry them (you cant do that in New Jersey). Across the entire state, firearms and freedom are a part of normal life. With all the sanctuary movements and protests, Virginias legislature has moved to still pass gun control laws, and of those laws, ERPOs are on the slate.

Our rights are being stripped from us by the political machine. It does not matter if the people have spoken. Interestingly enough, it does not matter to the leadership of Virginia that the heavily armed people have spoken and are speaking. We are slowly turning into subjects and surrendering our identities of being citizens.

If youre a gun owner, the threats are very real to you and your family. Not only are attacks coming down from our lawmakers, now you have to worry about people possibly filing false ERPOs. If youre not a gun owner, or for that matter, youre straight up anti-gun, you aught to pay attention to what is happening around you. While it may seem harmless for the rights of those people to be stripped, remember and realize that youre next.

If the war against legal gun owners ends in defeat of freedom, what liberties do you think are going to be attacked next? What happens when your political agenda does not align with the state or your opponents? With states considering outlawing words that maybe menacing to others, like is the case of Massachusetts trying to make it a crime to use the B word, with State Rep. Daniel Hunts (DBoston) H. 3719. A good question to Representative Hunt is What shall we do? Use the C word instead?

A stunning display of ignorance I think we all need to pay attention to is a quote In the New York State Rifle & Pistol Club V. City of New York Case no. 18-280 oral arguments in the Supreme Court. Justice Sotomayor, in December of 2019, makes a disturbingly stupid statement about the First Amendment when being compared to the Second Amendment:

but, if youre looking at a First Amendment right to speak, its never absolute. There are some words that are not protected. Were going to have a different fight about that at some point.

Sorry Justice Sotomayor, all words are protected. As much as you may wish to impose restrictions on ones expression and have that fight words are constitutionally protected. No matter how ugly or disgusting a person and or their opinion is, they are protected under the First Amendment. As long as there is no harassment or threats of harm, people can be as disgusting as they wish. Taking into consideration that, this affects everyone! Note that the movements to restrict expression are already in play.

Grecos attorney Albert J. Rescinio puts it best when asked for comment:

This is not just about guns and Second Amendment rights. This is about multiple fundamental constitutional rights. If people dont band together to stand up for their fundamental constitutional rights theyre going to find that they lose them. Right now it is say something we dont like and will take your guns without notice. The next thing will be say something we dont like and will throw you in prison without notice.

If anyone should have an ERPO imposed on them, it should be the activist Judges, legislators, and executives. The oath breakers should be stripped of their power to inflict harm on the citizenry in the way they restrict our rights.

Sound the alarm our rights are under attack! Who can we call? Where is our affidavit and where do we sign?

View post:
Theyre a Danger, So Have Their Guns Taken Away (All of them?) - Shore News Magazine