Mediaboss Marketing

Although the topics did not appear on Tuesdays agenda, the Second Amendment and gun control legislation dominated the first hour and a half of the county board meeting. Thirty-five people some more than once spoke during open forum. Most implored county commissioners to pass a resolution declaring Crow Wing Countys dedication to protecting residents Second Amendment rights, including potential legal action and the appropriation of public funds.

This isnt about guns. This is about due process. I cant rely on the federal system to protect me. I cant rely on the state system to protect me. So Im looking to my county to stand up and defend due process, said Emily resident Michael Starry. ... This is your opportunity to stand with your fellow citizens and tell us that youve got our backs the same way we have yours. Due process matters, the Constitution matters and our right to be free from tyranny, from oppression from any kind of madness that can take place that matters.

Supporters of a bill to make Crow Wing County a Second Amendment sanctuary county spoke to the Crow Wing County Board Tuesday, March 10, during the open forum segment of the meeting. Steve Kohls / Brainerd Dispatch

Starry is one of five administrators of a Facebook group called Patriots for Crow Wing 2nd Amendment Dedicated (Sanctuary) County, which sought to organize residents to attend Tuesdays meeting en force. The grassroots effort is among dozens coalescing across the state and hundreds nationwide, organized in response to gun control legislation many view as too restrictive or outright unconstitutional.

In Minnesota, the target is two bills passed by the state House of Representatives one expanding background checks to online sales and gun shows, and red flag legislation that would allow police officers to seize a persons firearms if a judge determined they were a threat to themselves or others.

Thus far, six Minnesota counties have passed sanctuary resolutions, including nearby Wadena County, indicating county leaders would fight back against these kinds of laws. Starry said he and thousands of others want Crow Wing County to join that list, and the activists got one step closer Tuesday. Midway through the parade of residents approaching the microphone, Board Chairman Paul Koering said the county board would host a public hearing at 6 p.m. March 19 in the Crow Wing County Land Services Building meeting rooms. He added he would also champion the desired resolution, putting it up for a vote at the March 24 county board meeting.

--------------------------------

What: Public hearing on proposed resolution that would make Crow Wing County a Second Amendment-dedicated county.

When: 6 p.m. March 19.

Where: Crow Wing County Land Services Building, meeting rooms 1 and 2, 322 Laurel St., Brainerd.

--------------------------------

Although a show of hands indicated a large majority of those in the room sympathized with a sanctuary resolution, at least four people who spoke said they opposed such action. Barb McColgan of Brainerd questioned the need for such a resolution and expressed concern over the county potentially dedicating public funds collected from all county residents to advance the views of one particular group.

Barb McColgan spoke Tuesday, March 10, about her concerns of just selecting one amendment of the constitution and not placing the emphasis on the whole document at the Crow Wing County Board meeting. Steve Kohls / Brainerd Dispatch

I guess my question is, this is in our Constitution, we are going to have to follow the state laws and federal laws. And so I dont see a purpose for this. It seems to me like were looking at what one special interest group wants, McColgan said. Couldnt we just as well have a resolution to support the First Amendment, freedom of speech or freedom of religion? And, you know, we can go on and on, and why dont we just resolve to support the entire Constitution, instead of breaking it apart? I feel that this resolution is divisive. Its an issue that isnt going to change anything if its passed.

Emotions ran high at times as residents explained the importance of the county boards support of the Second Amendment to them.

Brainerd High School student Boston Hackbart said the issue was a big one to him, most of his classmates and fellow service members in the Army National Guard. While sharing those thoughts, Hackbart appeared to be overcome by emotion. After several seconds of silence while Hackbart collected himself, Starry joined him at the podium.

This young man has never been politically active and something generated that in him, Starry said. ... This movement to try to protect liberty, to try to protect due process, it matters enough that he got up here trying to do this, which in my opinion is fricking amazing.

Pam Johnson, a resident of northeastern Crow Wing County, told commissioners when she was in danger from her abusive husband years earlier, a red flag law would not have protected her. She said he bought a gun not from a store, but from the street corner.

You can say somebodys mentally unstable. You can say, hey, you know, a guy beats his wife. Hes got a restraining order, he said this and that, he cant have a gun. Go down to your corner and buy one. Its that easy, Johnson said.

Several others pointed to the potentially dangerous implications or ineffectiveness of red flag legislation. Arguments included the idea people could lose their guns because of false claims by a vindictive ex-spouse, for example, or fears over how mental health problems may be defined and by whom.

Megan Pence along with her son Caleb and daughter Isabel talks to the Crow Wing County Board Tuesday, March 10, during the open forum segment of the board meeting. Several people gathered at the meeting to talk about their concerns of the recent Red Flag laws that are being proposed about firearm ownership in the state. Steve Kohls / Brainerd Dispatch

Megan Pence, accompanied by two of her five children, said shes concerned she could be a target of red flag legislation, despite her desire to protect her family.

I have three kids with disabilities. Some of those disabilities put me in very vulnerable situations, Pence said. I also have a long background of depression and anxiety. And red flag laws start to make me nervous if were going to start saying who can and cant carry a firearm, who can and cant protect their kids. Then I might be one of the first that cant carry a firearm.

But the county board has no purview over bills in the state Legislature what commissioners do have, however, is the ability to send a message on behalf of Crow Wing County residents, activists said.

Brainerd resident Darin Schadt said hes not the type to get political, but this issue moved him to get involved.

The people in the Cities are not listening to what people got to say up here. Were being left behind because the seven-county metro has all the votes, and it aint right, Schadt said. So thats why were all standing here coming to you people to send a message down to them, This aint right, were not putting up for it. And we don't want it. Its up to you guys to say no, our constituents up here do not want these things.

The rest is here:
Crowd seeks Crow Wing County support of 2nd Amendment - Brainerd Dispatch

From Twitter, cropped by Dean Weingarten

U.S.A. -(Ammoland.com)- Writing in the Atlantic, Aaron Tang, Professor of law at the University of California, creates a profoundly misleading comparison of the Second Amendment with a fabricated entitlement to an education.

Tang attempts to make the case that Second Amendment supporters and proponents of a theory the Constitution guarantees a right to an equally funded state education are rough equivalents.

There are minimal similarities in the arguments: a basic right implies a level of supporting rights. You cannot have effective Second Amendment rights without access to ammunition and a place to train. You cannot have an effective right of the press without the ability to own and operate media. You cannot have religious freedom without preventing the government from closing down churches and stopping private choices of conscience.

Tang claims the argument that the right to vote implies the entitlement to a state-funded education is equivalent to the argument by Second Amendment supporters that the enumerated right to keep and bear arms implies the right to have access to firing ranges. From the article:

So what do the gun activists argue? Its worth reproducing this argument from their brief verbatim, with emphasis added to a single word: The right to possess firearms for protection implies a corresponding right to acquire and maintain proficiency in their use after all, the core right to keep and bear arms for self-defense wouldnt mean much without the training and practice that make it effective. The Second Amendment may say nothing about the right to practice at a shooting range of ones choosing, in other words, but that right ought to be recognized implicitly because it is important for an express constitutional right to have full meaning.

Now consider the argument advanced by advocates of a constitutional right to basic literacy. Like gun activists and their right to firearms training, educational-equity advocates recognize that the Constitution says nothing explicit about education. But surely a guarantee of basic literacy skills must be implicit in the document in order for its express rights to have meaning. As the Gary B. complaint puts it, without access to basic literacy skills, citizens cannot engage in knowledgeable and informed voting, cannot exercise their right to engage in political speech under the First Amendment, and cannot enjoy their constitutionally protected access to the judicial system including the retention of an attorney and the receipt of notice sufficient to satisfy due process.

In order to reach this plausible-sounding bit of sophistry, Tang overlooks obvious, blatant differences.

The most obvious and fundamental difference, is no one is claiming the State must pay for Second Amendment training, the creation of ranges, or pay the costs of Second Amendment supporters who use those ranges. The Second Amendment arguments are all about stopping the state from preventing the exercise of Second Amendment rights. The Second Amendment arguments are all about limiting the power of the government to interfere with Second Amendment rights.

An equivalent right to education already exists in the First Amendment, with the right to free speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of religion. The government is not allowed to prevent you from becoming educated.

On the other hand, the proponents of education equality are demanding more power for the state. They are demanding the government provide state-run schools. They are demanding the government take from some taxpayers and give money to other taxpayers, to fund what they demand.

They demand an expansion of government power and authority, exactly the opposite of Second Amendment supporters.

You cannot teach students who are unwilling to learn. Access to basic literary skills already exists. If students want to learn, there are numerous, relatively inexpensive means for them to learn. Parental attitudes are far more important than funding. Some low funded schools produce excellent results and well-educated students. Some high funded schools produce horrible results and poorly educated students. Many students are taught at home, with excellent results.

Government-funded and run ranges are not required to exercise Second Amendment rights. They may be desirable. They are likely useful. They are not required.

Government-funded and run schools are not required for people to be literate and vote. People were literate and voted long before government-funded and run schools became the norm.

The arguments both use the word implied. The arguments have almost no similarity after that.

Federal government funding of schools has far more to do with creating a government-funded propaganda arm for the Democrat party, and funds for the Democrat party via teachers unions, than it has with creating literate citizens.

Government-funded schools may be desirable. They are likely useful. They are not required. Federally funded government schools are a recent development.

Professor Tang creates the illusion of equivalency of arguments with the assumption that a right to freedom from government interference is equivalent to an entitlement to government largess.

The Second Amendment is the protection of a fundamental right enumerated in the Bill of Rights. The Supreme Court has ruled the right existed long before the ratification of the Bill of Rights in 1791. The right to become educated was implicitly protected by the First Amendment. Voting was almost entirely left to the states, with the franchise gradually being expanded more and more and moreover the intervening centuries.

It is an enormous stretch to compare a right implied by a foundational, fundamental, enumerated right, such as the implied right to transport firearms to a range which welcomes you, outside the jurisdiction of your domicile; to an implied entitlement of a right to vote, to have the state pay for the education which you desire, by taking money from another jurisdiction to pay for the education in your jurisdiction.

He states Second Amendment supporters admit there is no explicit mention in the Constitution of the implied right to training.

Then he states the argument of an implicit entitlement of public education is equivalent. It isn't. It does not start with an explicit right. It starts with a claim that an entitlement is required to exercise a right. Exercise of Second Amendment rights does not require an entitlement.

An equivalent for the Second Amendment would be claiming the government must provide everyone with firearms.

There has never been a right to a government-funded education in the United States Constitution. (Some state Constitutions have a right to education in the text, Arizona is one)

There has never been a Constitutional right to government-provided food.

There has never been a Constitutional right to government-provided police protection.

There has never been a Constitutional right to government-provided housing.

There has never been a Constitutional right to government-provided firearms.

There can not be a legal right to those things, because Constitutional rights limit government. They protect you from what the government would do to you.

To say there are Constitutional rights to economic products is to say the government must control the economy and make sure everyone has equal outcomes. Otherwise, the right would not be equal under the law.

A right exists, even if you do not exercise it. Everyone has Second Amendment rights, not just gun owners. Everyone already has the right to seek and obtain an education, protected by the First Amendment, even if they do not exercise that right.

This fundamental misapplication of the word right' requires a fundamental transformation of the structure of government. In essence, it requires the economy to be run by the government, with who gets how much determined by bureaucracies or the courts, instead of from a combination of effort, determination, skill, talent, luck, and, yes, government.

Some redistribution has happened, of course. Redistribution has never been a right. It is a combination of charity and forced redistribution of wealth, to use the force of government to take what would not be given.

Constitutional rights limit what government can do to you. They do not define what governments must do for you. Limiting what the government can do to you does not take resources from someone else.

To equate the arguments for implied Second Amendment rights, which limit what the government is allowed to do, with implied requirements for the government to pay for an education is fundamentally dishonest.

After setting up the argument, by ignoring the direct, obvious differences between a foundational right restricting government, and a demand for more government to take from some, and give to others, Professor Tang makes this statement:

The identical logical structure that underpins these otherwise distinctive arguments presents a puzzle for the Supreme Court. How can it in good faith accept a theory of implied constitutional rights for gun owners only to reject the same argument for schoolchildren? Yet the consensus among close followers is that this is the most likely outcome: Gun-rights activists believe the Court is primed to deliver them a victory in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, while educational-equity advocates recognize that the Courts conservative majority is unlikely to rule in their favor.

They should rule differently. The logical structure is not identical. It is fundamentally different.

The information about the difference is well known in legal circles. It is hard to believe Professor Tang does not understand the theory of natural law and the need to limit governmental power, which is foundational to the entire structure of the Constitution. The federal government is granted significant, but limited powers by the Constitution. The power to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms is not one of those powers.

He rejects that structure. He works hard to replace it with the Progressive construct of a living Constitution; a Constitution meaning only what the current justices are pressured to have it mean at any given moment. Attorney General William P. Barr recently gave a superb speech clarifying the differences in the Progressive vision of expansive government versus the founders' vision of limited government.

The Second Amendment has been infringed in various ways over the history of the United States. Those infringements do not change the foundational right. The Supreme Court has ruled the right to keep and bear arms existed long before the Constitution. The Second Amendment is in place to protect the right, not to create it.

Until 1968, citizens could order anti-tank and anti-aircraft cannons and their ammunition in the mail. Most people, in most places, had easy access to modern firearms, ammunition and ranges.

The Supreme Court is coming out of a long period, during which the words of the Constitution were often ignored, exactly because of the Progressive vision of government Professor Tang is promoting.

An important part of the theory of Progressive governance is the necessity of lying to the population, in order to achieve the objectives the governing elite wishes to enact. This is called manufacturing consent.

The United States is in the process of rejecting that theory, and in restoring a Constitutional government of limited powers.

About Dean Weingarten:

Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of Constitutional Carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.

Read the rest here:
Dishonest Comparisons Between the Second Amendment and Government Funded Education - AmmoLand Shooting Sports News

TheDepartment of Public Safety of Newark, N.J., is warning residents they could be prosecuted for falselyreportingcoronavirus cases in the city.

The citys public safety director, Anthony Ambrose, cautioned Newark residents against posting false information aboutcases on social media, saying it can cause unnecessary public alarm.

Ambrose said in a statementthat the department will investigate and try to identify those making false claims on social media, adding that state laws carry penalties for causingfalse public alarm.

The State of New Jersey has laws regarding causing a false public alarm and we will enforce those laws, Ambrose said. Individuals who make any false or baseless reports about the coronavirus in Newark can set off a domino effect that can result in injury to residents and visitors and affect schools, houses of worship, businesses and entire neighborhoods, he added.

Public Safety Director Ambrose warns against false reporting of coronavirus in Newark via social media https://t.co/U1fS0RALHu via @Nextdoor pic.twitter.com/m75Y2CuB8L

Some on social media criticized the announcement, saying it violates the First Amendment.

The coronavirushas infected more than 1,000 people in the U.S. and killed at least 29.

The global outbreak is affecting the worlds economy and causing many events to be canceled, including sports competitions and political rallies. Several events, like the next Democratic debate, will occur without a live audience.Schools and universities are also canceling classes or moving them online.

View post:
Newark warns of criminal prosecution for 'false reporting of coronavirus' | TheHill - The Hill

Federal law makes it a felony for any person "for the purpose of commercial advantage or financial gain" to encourage or induce an undocumented alien to illegally enter or remain in the United States. On February 25, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in a case, United States v. Sineneng-Smith, which asks whether that sweeping prohibition should be struck down as an unconstitutional infringement on protected speech.

It should. Applied on its face, the federal prohibition against encouraging illegal immigration for financial gain criminalizes a wide range of lawful speech. For example, let's say that a self-described advocate of open borders writes a book urging civil disobedience in the face of what that author sees as America's unjust immigration regime. The book explicitly advises all undocumented immigrants to remain in the United States, to speak out, and to fight for their rights.

Would the sale of such a book encourage the unlawful presence of undocumented immigrants for financial gain? Clearly it would. But the First Amendment would just as clearly protect the author's liberty to write and sell such a book without facing federal charges.

Here's another example of how the law at issue criminalizes constitutionally protected speech. As the lawyers for Evelyn Sineneng-Smith point out in their brief to the Supreme Court, "the government admits telling a district court that it could use the encouragement provision to prosecute an immigration attorney for advising an undocumented client to stay in the country, and notably does not disavow that position in its brief."

Needless to say, there are plenty of good reasons why an immigration attorney might offer such legal advice. Perhaps the undocumented client has a compelling case and the lawyer believes there's a strong chance of persuading federal authorities to alter the client's legal status. The law at issue, however, makes it illegal for the lawyer to speak and act professionally in such matters.

Sineneng-Smith, the operator of an immigration consulting firm in San Jose, California, was convicted in 2010 on multiple counts of violating the law. Her position is that the law is unconstitutional on its face, not merely that it is unconstitutional as applied to her.

As the Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized, the Constitution frowns upon "overbroad laws that chill speech within the First Amendment's vast and privileged sphere." The overbroad law at the center of U.S. v. Sineneng-Smith fits that description.

Read more here:
The First Amendment Right To Encourage Illegal Immigration - Reason

The San Francisco Giants will be organizing a reunion of their 2010 World Series Championship team in August, without Aubrey Huff. Huff, who played a large role in the championship win, was unanimously left off the invite list due to bigoted and misogynistic comments hes made on social media.

First reported by The Athletic, the Giants confirmed that Huff would not be invited to the teams reunion, saying, Aubrey has made multiple comments on social media that are unacceptable and run counter to the values of our organization.

For reference, there was the time Huff tweeted about kidnapping Iranian women and the time he seemed to be advocating for a violent uprising in the event Donald Trump didnt win the 2020 election. Huff has also criticized the Giants first female coach Alyssa Nakken, saying, I dont believe a woman should be in mens pro sports Theres so many more people, especially men, who grind it out who deserve that spot more than she does.

Its not a huge surprise that the club, when celebrating one of their brightest moments in franchise history, would not want a guy like that around.

Huff, who initially said he was quite frankly, shocked. Disappointed about the decision posted a longer statement on Twitter on Monday night, alleging that the Giants were in fact attacking his First Amendment rights, persecuting him for his political beliefs, and, by association, doing nothing less than tearing at the fabric of our democratic process.

We live in a country that is under attack Huff, a vocal Trump supporter, wrote in his statement. Society is desperatly trying to take away our 1st amendment, our freedom of speech and our freedom of political associationWhile Im disappointed the Giants are so opposed to President Trump, and our constitutional rights that theyd uninvite me to my teams reunion, it shows me now more than ever we have to stand up for our 1st amendment rights. Otherwise the America we know and love is already dead.

To be clear, the Giants iterated via the Athletic that Huffs exclusion from the event was based purely on his vile social media behavior, and had nothing to do with his political beliefs.

Whats also clear from Huffs statement, aside from casting himself here as the victim, is that he has no idea what the First Amendment actually promises. For claritys sake, the amendment says, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Its right there in the first word. Congress.

The first amendment says the government can make no law abridging free speech. It doesnt mean that people who say dumb, hurtful, crude things on Twitter wont suffer personal consequences. Huffs been able to say whatever he wants for some time now, a right that he exercises all the time. The government has never stepped in and deprived him of his ability to be awful online, and so far, neither has a platform like Twitter. All Huff is suffering from is the consequences of his own actions. Being vocal on social media and having a large platform also means there will be plenty of people who dont agree with your views, especially when those views are highly derogatory towards women.

Its laughable that being excluded from a private event by his former employer would be equal to a violation of Huffs constitutional rights. Those rights guarantee a whole host of freedoms that Huff readily enjoys. Huff seems to think that his political beliefs are why hes being uninvited to the celebration, when the truth is frankly far simpler, though probably harder for him to swallow. Its not his politics that his former teammates cant stand, its him.

Go here to read the rest:
Aubrey Huff has no idea what the First Amendment really means - For The Win