Mediaboss Marketing

June 24, 2022

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Of all the absurdities that we accept without question, basing the right to own an AR15 on the Second Amendment is the most brazenly far-fetched.

The man who gunned down those nineteen children and two educators at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas on May 24 of this year was not acting in concert with a well-regulated militia. He was acting as a madman inspired by an evil impulse to slaughter innocent children. And the police who answered the call waited outside for an hour, afraid to go in unwilling to risk their lives to an insane man armed with a modern killing machine.

We need to ask ourselves some common sense questions:

Heres a practical analogy regarding changing times:

In the early days of our nation, people traveled overland by horse-drawn carriages. There was no regulatory entity issuing licenses. The roads were not too crowded and drivers generally managed to avoid accidents. With the invention and refinement of the automobile, the roads became more congested and dangerous. Rules of the road were codified and drivers were required to apply for licensure based on knowledge and competence.

Similarly pragmatic reasoning must be applied to guns. The front-loading musket of Revolutionary War days is not equivalent to an AR15. It is not a gun in the Fourth Amendment sense of the word. No such mass-murder machine was even dreamed of in the days of our forefathers. And the murderer of the Uvalde children was not a member of a well-regulated militia. He was a madman with an AR15.

I am not recommending more stringent licensing for AR15s. We as citizens do not need these weapons. Their proliferation is neither dictated nor endorsed by the Second Amendment. The only real beneficiaries of their continued public sale are members of the gun industry.

When will the next mass shooting be? And why must it be? We can end this.

Excerpt from:
Uvalde and the Second Amendment - Daily Kos

Photograph Source: Gerald L. Nino, CBP, U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security Public Domain

In 2017, when I was interviewing people at Customs and Border Protection headquarters in Washington, DC, one official told me point-black, Were exempted from the Fourth Amendment. The Border Patrol, according to him, can circumvent the Constitution and conduct unwarranted searches and seizures. I suppose I didnt hide my look of surprise too well (he said it so authoritatively and casually!), because the officer immediately followed that up with a quick the Supreme Court ruled that many decades ago.

On June 8, the U.S. Supreme Court again validated this exemption and strengthened it. In Egbert v. Boule the court ruled to protect federal agents, particularly Border Patrol agents, from civil rights lawsuits (by making it much more difficult to do so). Central to the case was a Fourth Amendment claim. U.S. Border Patrol agent Erik Egbert entered innkeeper Robert Boules property in Blaine, Washington, without a warrant to check the immigration status of some recently arrived guests. When Boule protested Egberts presence, Egbert threw him against a vehicle and then to the ground. In its ruling in favor of Egbert, the Supreme Court wrote that regulating the conduct of agents at the border has national security implications, and that there would be a risk in undermining border security.

As SCOTUSblog contributing writer Howard Wasserman told NPR, Considerations of national security and foreign affairs that are endemic to immigration enforcement and immigration issues are always going to make it improper for a damages action to go forward. As has been the case since 9/11, the broad yet ill-defined notion of national security trumps all else.

But there is a longer history to this, as the CBP official alluded to at the beginning. Geographer Reece Jones, author of the forthcoming Nobody Is Protected: How the Border Patrol Became the Most Dangerous Police Force in the United States, told me that this was the latest example of the continued evisceration of Fourth Amendment protections. The Supreme Court had previously ruled that Border Patrol agents needed lower standards of evidence to stop vehicles, could operate permanent checkpoints deep inside the U.S., and could use racial profiling in all of their work. Now, even when citizens are subjected to egregious abuses of authority, there is no mechanism to hold Border Patrol agents accountable.

I Feel Like I Have No Civil Rights

Read more here:
How a Supreme Court Ruling Impacts the Tohono O'odham Nation - CounterPunch

Anti-American congressional members, of both parties, have proven again that they are the people the Founding Fathers warned us against.

Specifically, the proposed bribing of states to arbitrarily strip citizens Second Amendment rights also obliterates the due process clause and the Fourth Amendment.

Concerned parents are officially labeled domestic terrorists for exercising their First Amendment rights through speaking against school boards, so its no stretch to believe Second Amendment rights will be stripped for opposing other leftist agenda items.

One can easily expect to see similar bribes for illegal alien sanctuary, fully-centralized zoning laws, radical education policies, voting rules, forced unionization, etc. Noncompliance will strip federal taxpayer funds.

These Democrats and RINOs wont stop until they achieve absolute power over all Americans. They state their efforts are just an important first step. When will patriotic Americans start taking these authoritarians at their word and hold them fully accountable for their intentional destruction of our constitutional republic?

Steve Bristol

Clinton

Read more from the original source:
Letter to the editor: Gun measures are 'anti-American' - New Haven Register

LaGrange Police Illegally Arrest Grandmother Over Phone

Police claim they dont need a warrant to seize property

The City of Lagrange is looking at a potential lawsuit after officers with the LaGrange Police Department arrested local nursing assistant Sharatha Dozier when she exercised Fourth Amendment rights by requesting a warrant before she would turn her mobile phone over to the officers.

The incident occurred on Sunday, June 12, when Dozier, a 47-year-old black woman, went to the LaGrange Police Department to check on her grandson. While waiting for information, officers gave her an iPhone taken from her grandson when hed been arrested. Soon, the police officers told Dozier to turn the phone back over to them, threatening to arrest her for obstruction of justice if she refused. Thats when Dozier took out her other phone and started broadcasting the encounter on social media.

Ms. Dozier didnt break into police headquarters and steal evidence. The phone wasnt locked up in some evidence locker, They gave it to her. Then, because she had the audacity to exercise her rights, they locked her up, said Doziers attorney, Harry Daniels. Thats not the way it works, otherwise none of us would be safe.

Police are there to protect and serve no to bully and steal.

On the video, seen by more than 8,000 viewers on Facebook Live, Dozier can be clearly heard telling officers the she is not refusing to turn over the phone, but simply asking officers to follow the law which requires a warrant.

Im not being detained. I havent committed any crime at all, Dozier says on the video. Im not refusing to give yall the phone. Lets just do it the right way. Get a warrant. Thats all Im saying.

Claiming they didnt need a warrant, officers then tried to prevent Dozier from leaving the police department by threatening to arrest her if she did.

After further discussion in which Dozier made it clear that she needed to leave and go to work, the officers walked Dozier to exit while repeating their threats and, as soon as she walked through the door, placed her under arrest injuring her wrist in the process.

Click to HERE to view the video.

See the original post:
LaGrange Police Illegally Arrest Grandmother Over Phone [Video] - atlantadailyworld

The charges have been dropped against the Suring school district administrator who had students stripped to their underwear in a January search.

Suring School administrator Kelly Casper confined six students to a restroom off the school nurses office to be searched on Jan. 18. The district attorney initially didnt file charges because he said the search did not meet Wisconsins legal definition of a strip search, but later charged Casper with six counts of false imprisonment.

A judge dismissed the charges against Casper on Tuesday, saying there were insufficient facts to support the claim that Casper had falsely imprisoned the six girls. Casper was placed on paid administrative leave in March.

Stay informed with WPR's email newsletter.

Casper kept the six girls, then ages 14 to 17, in a restroom off the school nurses office and had them strip to their underwear to be checked for vaping cartridges. The search turned up two cartridges, and another girl admitted to having a vape on her, according to the Green Bay Press Gazette.

The families of several girls hired civil rights attorney Jeff Scott Olson earlier this year. He told Wisconsin Public Radio in March that, regardless of the outcome of the now-dismissed criminal charges, he planned to move ahead with a civil suit over what he says is a violation of the girls Fourth Amendment right against unlawful search and seizure.

See the original post:
Charges dismissed against Suring administrator for search where students had to remove clothes - Wisconsin Public Radio