Here’s a cheap shot from a cheap man:
It turns out a freedom rally still needs a permit.
“Will you bow down and lick the boots of tyrants, or will you stand for the liberty of your children?” reads the rally’s website. The rally sign-up page shows 6,100 people say they plan to come to the state Capitol grounds on Dec. 13 to flout the new gun-background-checks law, passed by voters as Initiative 594.
…
For any gathering of more than 75 people, a free permit is required by state law, mostly so groups don’t interfere with one another, she said.
….
The permit for a rally and the background check for a gun are both hurdles. And yes, both are irritants. But neither blocks the underlying right.
That isn’t tyranny. For better or worse it’s called civilization.
I bet in the end the “I Will Not Comply” rally will happen, and it will be full of enough speechifying and arms-brandishing for an NRA convention. It will demonstrate only that both our First and Second Amendments are doing just fine.
READ ENTIRE ARTICLE
What Danny Westneat forgets is that the Bill of Rights doesn’t give uscollective rights, only individual rights. Protests need permits just for the extra traffic they cause alone, never mind the possibility of riots and other problems, although I don’t remember the last time law-abiding gun owners engaged in rioting. That’s something you’re more likely to see among football fans and ghetto denizens.
I do wonder how Westneat feels about abortion restrictions, voting ID’s, and enforcing our immigration laws? Because none of those issues are individual rights, voting for example requires you to be 18, abortion requires filling medical form, even in the most liberal states; and legal immigration is certainly a privilege. The Statue of Liberty is not the INS, that’s one of my main arguments with libertarians that seem to think America is a giant Walmart where anyone can show up, anytime they want, in their pajama pants.
Yes, the voters passed Initiative 594, but voters in other States have passed laws against same-sex marriage and I doubt Danny support that. The question should always this, does this law violate my individual laws? And while I’m not sure marriage is a right (even for heterosexuals who still need to find someone willing to say “yes”), I do think the right to keep and bear arms is well, a right that I-594 violates.
Background checks? Why not have them for books then? Make Westneat fill up paperwork the next time he wants to buy a copy of The Communist Manifesto or Living History or Dreams from my Father. That would clearly be unconstitutional, and so is I-594.
