1st vs. 2nd Amend. rights?

Chuck B.

New member
In Tempe, AZ, there is a problem with transients in the downtown area. In an effort to keep them moving along, the City Council recently enacted an ordinance against sitting or laying on the sidewalk. According to an OP/ED piece in the Arizona Republic today:
"Tempe tried to regulate traffic on its downtown sidewalks by requiring anyone wishing to sit on the sidewalk to obtain a permit to protest. That violated the First Amendment, U.S. District Judge Stephen McNamee said. Making would-be protesters go to City Hall to obtain a permit constituted an onerous burden, the judge added."

So, for the sleez... er, I mean "protesters" to obtain a permit to lay on the downtown sidewalks is an "onerous burden" on the exercising of their 1st Amendment rights, but background checks, waiting periods, 16-hour CCW classes, finger printing, CCW permit fees, etc., etc., etc., is not an onerous burden on the exercising of our RKBA.

Go figure.
 
Not too hard to figure. The "protesters" are the ones who will side with the Democratic Socialists. There are two things that the Socialists choke on. (1) An armed society, and (2) private property ownership. Therefore, it is not a "burden" to screw the gun owners, but the people who wait for their welfare checks every month must not be "burdened", after all, that is where the votes come from.
 
Back
Top