Mediaboss Marketing

By DJ Rippert

Sticks and stones? Del. Jeffrey M. Bourne, D-Richmond, has introduced HB1627. The bill is entitled, Threats and harassment of certain officials and property; venue. The proposed legislation strengthens a series of very questionable laws already on the books.

The first few sections of the existing law make it illegal to make threats in written communications to kill or do bodily injury to a person in a variety of occupations and situations. For example, threats to elementary school, middle school or high school employees are called out in the existing legislation. Similarly, threats made on school buses, on school property, or against health care providers are also explicitly illegal. Beyond wondering why certain classes of people or places deserve extra protection from death threats or threats of bodily harm the existing legislation seems pretty straightforward. Ill-conceived and overly limited but straightforward.

Then comes the section entitled, Harassment by computer, penalty. This section goes well beyond outlawing death threats and threats of bodily harm. It specifically references Virginia state politicians as needing legal protection from such things as threatening illegal or immoral acts.

Snowflake protection act. The existing language of laws to be modified by HB1627 gets very broad when the topic turns to state government officials receiving threats, insults or lascivious language. To wit:

18.2-152.7:1. Harassment by computer; penalty.

If any person, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, or harass any person, shall use a computer or computer network to communicate obscene, vulgar, profane, lewd, lascivious, or indecent language, or make any suggestion or proposal of an obscene nature, or threaten any illegal or immoral act, heshall beisguilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. A violation of this section may be prosecuted in the jurisdiction in which the communication was made or received or in the City of Richmond if the person subjected to the act is one of the following officials or employees of the Commonwealth: the Governor, Governor-elect, Lieutenant Governor, Lieutenant Governor-elect, Attorney General, or Attorney General-elect, a member or employee of the General Assembly, a justice of the Supreme Court of Virginia, or a judge of the Court of Appeals of Virginia.

RVA. Del Bournes major addition to Virginias existing anti-free speech legislation is apparently an attempt to move the venue for prosecution of the offenses contained in the existing law. HB1627 adds to the Harassment by Computer section of the law A violation of this section may be prosecuted in the jurisdiction in which the communication was made or received or in the City of Richmond if the person subjected to the act is one of the following officials or employees of the Commonwealth: the Governor, Governor-elect, Lieutenant Governor, Lieutenant Governor-elect, Attorney General, or Attorney General-elect, a member or employee of the General Assembly, a justice of the Supreme Court of Virginia, or a judge of the Court of Appeals of Virginia.

A resident of Annandale saying lascivious things about Annandale based State Sen. Dick Saslaw on the fictional blog Annandale Today would now be tried in Richmond? Having quashed the second amendment and the first amendment our new majority apparently now wants to take aim at the sixth amendment (a jury of ones peers). How many amendments are left?

Thought crimes. Once again we see existing Virginia law trying to make private human thought a crime. Intent to coerce, intimidate or harass By what magic will Virginia law enforcement officials or courts know whether the person making the statement had an intent to coerce, intimidate or harass? Would Jim Bacons column attempting to solve the Ralph Northam blackface riddle constitute coercion, intimidation or harassment? How about communicating obscene, vulgar, profane, lewd, lascivious or indecent language? Thats a cornucopia of vague, ill defined adjectives that could mean just about anything to anybody. Does the new Democratic majority hope to stifle criticism of the state government by threatening legal action adjudicated in the cozy confines of Richmond using an umbrella of nonsense words (e.g. lascivious)? Does Del. Bourne hope the mere threat of enforcing vague laws using Richmond as the venue will be sufficient to stifle criticism of the Democratic majority?

Rips Wrap. This proposed bill attempts to take anti-free speech, anti-liberty, anti-American legislation and make it worse. This whole area of existing and proposed law is emblematic of a power-drunk state legislature trying to preserve and extend special privileges for itself and a few chosen groups of special interests. Why is it specifically illegal to threaten school employees or health care providers but not firemen, policemen or accountants? Why should the venue for any charges derived from this law against state politicians or state government employees be the City of Richmond (comprising less than 3% of Virginias population)? The laws that deal with threats of death or bodily harm should be repealed or expanded to cover all Virginians. The sections against the use of lewd, lascivious, etc commentary should be repealed along with an official apology from the General Assembly for ever enacting such garbage in the first place. Oh sorry was that lascivious of me?

Related

Read more:
Finished with the Second Amendment Virginia Dems Now Attack the First (and Sixth) - Bacon's Rebellion

ELIZABETH, W.Va. (WTAP) -- The Wirt County Commission passed a resolution Friday morning declaring the county "a Second Amendment sanctuary," joining Putnam County, Preston County and the community of Fort Gay in Wayne County as the only others in West Virginia to approve the designation.

The resolution cites the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, a past ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court and the West Virginia's state constitution, proclaiming the right to keep and bear arms.

In one clause of the resolution, the commission says it "is concerned about the passage of any law containing language that would unconstitutionally infringe upon the rights of the citizens of Wirt County to bear arms".

Communities in other states, including neighboring Ohio and Virginia, have passed similar resolutions while state lawmakers have considered passing gun laws in response to recent mass shootings.

Read the rest here:
Wirt County approves "Second Amendment sanctuary" resolution - WDTV

To the Editor:

In 1996, the Dickey Amendment was a rider to the U.S.omnibus spending bill. This limited federal spending on gun research and was heavily supportedby the NRA. Reasonable gun owners should all welcome the recent passage into law oflegislation championed by our own Congresswoman Lauren Underwood (D-Naperville). A total of $25 million was allocated to be split between the Centers for Disease Control and the National Institutes of Health for this research.

Our community has experienced a mass shooting, children routinely practice school active shooter drills, and police dont know what they face in many interactions with the public. Enough is enough! Our residents and law enforcement officers deserve better.

As a gun owner, I appreciate Congresswoman Underwoods leadership on combating gun violence. This legislation is a small but crucial first step. Underwood needs to know that the community, including many gun owners, will support her and her peers as more sensible requirements to reduce gun violence are introduced.

Sensible reforms can be accomplished without impacting our rights under the Second Amendment.

William Bachman

St. Charles

Continued here:
Letter: Gun law reforms possible while respecting Second Amendment - Northwest Herald

NEWAYGO, Mich. Some citizens in Newaygo County are pushing to become a sanctuary county when it comes to the second amendment. Its similar to a resolution being considered in Ionia County.

Ionia County tabled their discussion on their resolution to give the prosecutor and sheriff more time to look it over. Citizens in Newaygo County are hoping for a similar plan meant to protect peoples right to bear arms.

To me, it seems like our 2nd amendment rights are being infringed upon by other groups wanting to take our rights away," Mike Hikade said.

Thats why Hikade volunteered to lead the group in Newaygo County interested in making it a sanctuary county for the 2nd amendment.

It just seems that because of unfortunate incidences that have happened that all of a sudden the thing they want to do is take guns away from people," he said.

Hikade says his efforts started with a Change.org petition to gauge interest in the idea. Now he says he turned in a petition to the county board with more than 500 signatures in support.

He says the goal is to ensure the second amendment is upheld in Newaygo County should any gun control legislation be passed at the state or federal level.

"To me, this just reinforces that right, Hikade said.

Wednesday morning, county commissioners listened to a member of the second amendment groups presentation.

Newaygo County commissioner and board chairman Bryan Kolk told FOX 17, I think what theyre asking us to do is to follow the constitution in how those laws are enforced should there be something that would be considered a non-constitutional law passed."

He added, "Now, the board of commissioners... it does not tell the sheriff or the prosecutors office how they run their office. So we cant dictate to them how they would enforce this.

Kolk says all the commissioners have already taken an oath to uphold the constitution.

At this point, well take a look at what he presented to us and if we decide we like what we see and if weve given this the right time then well probably bring this forward," he said.

Hikade said, The way I look at this too, to me I want to consider part of this piece to be education about why firearms are needed or why its necessary to do this.

The board chairman says the next step is for a board member to take up the resolution to consider it for a adoption if a commissioner chooses to do so.

Read the original post:
Newaygo County citizens petition board to become '2nd amendment sanctuary county' - Fox17

Dear Editor:

Why did our Founders add the right to bear arms to our Bill of Rights? It was because some felt that without this guarantee, the federal government would disarm the people in order to disable the citizens militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule.

So New York state, under the leadership of liberal elected officials, has shackled its citizens with gun-control legislation. What is the reason? is New York state leading the way for state control of constitutional rights? Given the control of the state by Democratic, liberal elected and appointed officials and the new changes in our judicial bail system, one can only wonder: Are we heading toward a state government that will try to eliminate our freedom?

The U.S Supreme Court, in its 2008 ruling inDistrict of Columbia v. Heller, held that the Second Amendment protects an individuals right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that weapon for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense, within the home. Moreover, this right applies not just to the nation, but to states and municipalities.

The court reasoned that this right is fundamental to the nations scheme of ordered liberty, given that self-defense was a basic right recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present, and the court, in the Heller ruling, held that individual self-defense was the central component of the Second Amendment right.

Protect your rights.

Joseph Izzo

Catskill, N.Y.

Read more here:
LETTER: NY state law defies Second Amendment and right to bear arms - The Daily Freeman