Tuesday, September 21, 2010

Guns, Privacy, and Probable Clause

In a news report covering the single incident that is prompting Culver's, a restaurant chain, to look into their firearms policies, an underemphasized detail was revealed that left me wondering just how routine trampling civil rights is.

The story is that several members of an organization of Wisconsinites who advocate the open carrying of firearms, Wisconsin Carry, went out for dinner at Culver's in Madison while using their Constitutional rights to bear arms. One ignorant but well-meaning woman called the police.

Once they arrived, the first thing the officers did was demand identification from the group, on threat of citation; all but two consented to the unlawful orders.

"Two of the individuals would not produce identification, saying they didn't need to because they're law-abiding citizens," said [Police spokesman] DeSpain. The officers said, 'That's probably the case but we'd like to check it out.'"

Oh, you'd like to check it out?

Very well... check it:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." ~Fourth Amendment to the Constitution

Ergo, with the arrest of a presumably innocent person, which has been already defined by the Supreme Court as seizure, for not producing papers on command, especially considering the fact that the officers themselves admit they thought it probable that the men were not in violation of any laws, the police were usurping their authority as law enforcement officers. Why they have not been relieved of their handcuffs for frivolous and false arrest, I don't know. There were no warrants for their papers, there were no warrants for their arrest, and police admit there was no suspicion of crime.

Not only that, but the police should have ignored the call, as it was, by its very nature, a non-emergency call, which was placed due to the ignorance of law by a bystander, something that the 911 operator should have made clear. It is absolutely legal to openly carry a firearm, though some unlawful legislation prohibits it in some cities. I used to be supportive of concealed carry permits, as I thought, erroneously, concealed carry was not covered by the Second Amendment, as concealing is the opposite of bearing. But the nature of the Second Amendment, as a good friend and I discussed (and I subsequently recanted my opinion on CCP's), is not to establish our right to keep and bear arms, but to restrict the government's encroachment thereof. Therefore, it is not given to the government to regulate the purchase, ownership, transference, or carrying of firearms, open or concealed.

So, the police had it wrong on two counts, in what turned out to be a relatively high-profile incident, but how many times a day does this occur? Why are our police so uneducated on the law? Why are our citizens so afraid of guns in the hands of fellow citizens, when police are just as susceptible to error and poor judgment as the Average Joe? I can tell you, it has been by design that slaves are trained to shriek at the sight of another slave being armed.

It is our right, it is our duty, and it is our essence as freeborn Americans to protect and defend our inheritance of rights like men, standing erect, stalwartly and with uncompromising resolve, with all sincerity and sobriety.

Thursday, September 16, 2010

Son III Goes to College... and Walks Out

On the fifteenth, I saw an advertisement in the Shopper for an event on the seventeenth at Emporia State University, "U.S. Constitution: Dead or Alive?"

Of course, I had to go. Especially since it was held on Constitution Day, I thought, at worst, they'd explain both sides of the two, main Constitutional interpretations; one is that it is a "living, breathing document" that changes at the whim of government; the other is "original intent", or "dead and stale", forever cursed to be interpreted with the meaning and intent given it two centuries ago... well, at least that's how the Living-Breathers explain the "original intent" interpretation.

I'm a Dead'n'Stale man, myself. I'll explain why in a moment.

It took forever to find where the event was being held, but my dad and I made it to the on-campus building and found that the crowd was mostly comprised of actual ESU students and elderly. I wondered why there wasn't a wider demographic, especially considering the sponsors of the event, the Emporia League of Women Voters, made it more than clear in their opening statements that their goal is to enhance diversity in civic life, especially in elections, by educating the public.

After a dry and microphoneless ten minutes of introduction (a note to public speakers everywhere: get set-up before event begins), the main speaker, a former Kansas Bar president and current Wichita Bar president, A. Jack Focht, stood and began an eloquent oration on politics. He even quoted from America, the Beautiful, which, itself, deserved an applause. Well, his speech remained eloquent and patriotic until he got to minute-marker 12, or thereabouts:

"But, these days, there are a lot of angry people, and there we have the teabagger vote..."

The word "teabagger" echoed in my head and Dad and I glanced at each other with knowing looks. The attorney went on to explain that Tea Parties are comprised of angry people who never read the Constitution, and that Kansans for Life, a Pro-Life organization, will undoubtedly, with malice aforethought, pass out voter guides advising people to vote out incumbent judges at churches and parking-lots. *Gasp!* And Kansans for Life should not do so, as that will cause judges to rule according to public opinion instead of the law, for fear of the vote.

After that, I was left wondering how someone so old and knowledgeable could say something like that. The man is the former president of the Kansas Bar Association, and is the current president of the Wichita Bar Association, so if a judge is afraid of someone's opinion, it should be his, as he is the representative of a judge's peers.

Mr. Frocht told of how he talked to Tea Party friend of his, who, in the course of a conversation, said he is angry and that we should restore the Constitution, but then ol' A. Jack explained that this friend probably never even read the Constitution and neither have most of the Tea Partiers.

Minutes dragged on as the speaker slammed original intent interpretations of the Constitution. For instance, the internet is something that Founders couldn't imagine, so how can we apply it to upcoming legislation that will regulate the internet? Frocht's answer is that we can't, so just ignore the Constitution, and get on with life! And if you don't like something in the Constitution, don't try to amend it like the law says to do; just have a judge rule on it the way he sees fit, because it's just too darn hard to amend!

And oh! how he hates the term activist judge, because that just means you disagree with the judge's decision. (That got an approving laugh from the crowd.) And abortion falls under privacy and individual liberty, he explained. Also, the Constitution's interpretations can and should evolve with society.

It was like a Constitution and Conservative roast, throwing in every insult and lie that came to mind. Needless to say, I'd had enough. We stood up to leave, and as we walked towards the door, footsteps echoing on the hardwood floors, one of the women speakers glared at me, eyebrows knitted, as if to say, " I know who you are, and you're a terrorist."

I didn't say a word as I left, but if I had, it would have been this:

Ladies and gentlemen, do you know why I'm leaving? Because my country's Constitution is being shredded before my American eyes, and I don't like it. More than that, I'm going to do something about it. I'm going to host my own event on the Constitution, where only freedom and rule of law are espoused. I'm going to tell my listeners what Thomas Jefferson said about that 'living, breathing document, that is ever changing', as you call it:

'On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.'

And people, that was what Jefferson said to a judge. No interpretation besides that which the framers explained to us, and that extends to every area of the law! Yet this cheeky fellow thinks he can stand here and destroy the Constitution and original intent, mocking and maligning patriotism? No! I'll not listen one more second!

John Adams said we are a nation of laws and not of men, but how can that be without a solid and resolved Constitution? Of what use is a Constitution if its supremacy is dictated by the inclinations of government or society?

Patriots are rising up all over America, and you can call them teabaggers, racists, or whatever lying, conniving thing you can think of to discredit them, but you will be the only one discredited in the end! Why? Because Americans are angry! We're mad! What's more, we're as mad as Hell, and we're not going to take this anymore! We're tired of your garbage!

Saturday, September 11, 2010

Book Burning and That Little Issue of Freedom

The President has commented on the matter that the stunt is, as he put it, "... completely contrary to our values as Americans," noting that this country was built on religious freedom and tolerance, and that the stunt would endanger our troops in Afghanistan.

As you saw in the video above, General Petraeus said the mission in Afghanistan would be made more difficult due to anger among the Afghans at images of the Koran burning, causing, possibly, a violent response.

And here I was thinking the mission in Afghanistan was to protect our freedoms. That's what we've been told, anyway. So, how is it that we have a military presence in Afghanistan for the purpose of defending freedom, and when that freedom is used it makes Afghans angry, so we then must put a stop to the use of that freedom? It doesn't make sense! Our troops are there for the specific purpose of defending that pastor's right to burn the Koran, and we tell him not to? Our President says it is contrary to our values to use our freedoms?

Some have said it is a pointless stunt. Why? Because you think it is pointless? Then protest it. You're free to do so, just as the Afghans are; and if the Afghans don't want the military of a free nation in their enslaved country, then we should either get out or start shooting them. And, frankly, Afghans have the right to be an enslaved, backward, hateful culture if they want to be, so I favor pulling out, and I would never support killing people for religious differences.

So, what is our mission in Afghanistan? Forcing them to accept freedom they don't want at the expense of our soldiers' lives, or protecting our own freedoms until the cavemen complain, and then acquiesce to their whining?

The Floridian pastor has been pressured to the point that he has canceled the burning, a victory for Muslims abroad, a defeat for the sovereignty of our freedom.

What would our dead troops say, having supposedly died for that pastor's rights, if they knew the Muslims that killed them got their way, not by defeating our military, but because the skulking, putrid, degenerate people in their own, American government were slime enough to let them have their way.

Shame on all political and media voices who spoke only in condemnation and contempt of the Floridian pastor.

Sunday, September 05, 2010

Where Art Thou, Wayward Son III?

Oh, my peeps. I know I have been nigh unto a dead link on your dashboard's "Blogs I'm Following" list, but I have not been idling my hours, I assure you.

Facebook has finally caught up with this anti-trendite. (Not a word, I know, but that's the sort of power Facebookers wield.)

Not only that, but I have a job, and I volunteer with a political organization, so, needless to say, my blog is in disrepair. Plus, my background depresses me; I regret that I changed it from my clean, white slate to this loud, obnoxious background which looks like it was copied from a fireworks ad.

Soon, my friends, I will be back in business, and we can get to the OH, SO MANY ISSUES that have arisen since I last posted.

Websites That Make This One Possible

Ideations of a Jayhawker: Blog Policies

No vulgar, obscene, vile, or inappropriate language or insinuation may be used, and comments are subject to editing or deletion at my own discretion.

Please use proper spelling, following the rules of grammar of the English language.

The elimination of comments due to an objectionable account image may also be used at my discretion. Links given in comments that direct one to a website containing evil or unsightly content will also be deleted at my discretion.

Advocating or promoting specific acts of violence isn't allowed, but the vitriolic spewing of rants and ravings is encouraged.


Content found in this blog is public domain, and it may be used freely; permission to recreate is automatically given, I only ask that I be informed when it is copied on another website; though this is not required, it would be considered a kind gesture.

Content found at any other website that was linked to from this page is beyond my control. I strive to put out as little objectionable content as possible here, but if you do find something that you feel is inappropriate, please contact me via comment, and I will duly edit it to a degree I deem appropriate.

Quotes you may find are all sic, including spelling, grammar, etc.

Followers of this blog are more than welcome, but if you have a website that routinely displays content that you wouldn't allow a child to view or read, do not follow this blog unless you have a blogger warning previous to entering your website.
Failure to do so may result in being blocked from the followers list.

A follower may also be blocked if your account image is found to be objectionable.