First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; of abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or of the right of people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievance.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Infringement or merely a tool?
Excerpts from “Gang activity restricted in S.A. neighborhood”
by Kate Hunger; Express-News Staff Writer
(San Antonio Express-News, 7/8/99, pg 1A)
“In what could signal a new weapon in the war against gang violence, authorities declared a San Antonio neighborhood a ‘safety zone,’ and have obtained a temporary restraining order against 38 individual gang members.”
“Prohibited activities range from associating with other gang members and dealing drugs to possessing a gun, spray paint, beeper or cell phone.” Some 30 types of “prohibited behavior” are banned as a class A misdemeanor (up to one year in jail). The defendants range from age
15 to 23.
“Asked whether the injunction would trample the Bill of Rights in the process of allaying citizen fears, (San Antonio District Attorney Susan) Reed said, “We have rights, but you can’t abuse them.”
A member of the DA’s office is hopeful the injunction will stand since similar measure in California seem to be withstanding legal challenges.
A local resident, Rose Mary “Perez hopes the injunction succeeds for the sake of the children.... We want to salvage them and protect the little ones.”
--------
The editors of the San Antonio Express-News hails this effort as “a good tool” to end “the scourge of violent gangs without violating the U. S. Constitution....”
-------
Why should I feel safer because of this injunction?
- The people named in this injunction already are forbidden to have firearms.
- Drug dealing already is illegal.
- “Tagging” (spray paint graffiti) already is illegal.
- Cell phones and beepers are no threat.
(So now the kids’ relatives
and friends carry the cell phones and beepers.)
The only additional “achievements” of this injunction is to
- prohibit possession of selected legal products, and
- outlaw specified public and private gatherings.
San Antonio already has outlawed lock-blade knives (of any kind) with certain exemptions for those who have a “legitimate” reason for
possessing one.
Now San Antonio is determining which people may meet under any conditions. Note that disorderly conduct or other criminal activity is not required for any of these two people to be charged - only their presence at the same place, at the same time. Even in a private residence.
Apparently the City Council or any judge may now determine:
- who constitutes a gang,
- with whom you may associate,
- who may come to your house,
- whom you may visit, and
- who may legally possess spray paint, lock-blade knives, cell phones, and pagers.
What other groups could be similarly controlled?
What other legal items may become prohibited?
Where can this lead? Especially under pressure from gun control
groups?
[This message has been edited by Dennis (edited July 19, 1999).]
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Infringement or merely a tool?
Excerpts from “Gang activity restricted in S.A. neighborhood”
by Kate Hunger; Express-News Staff Writer
(San Antonio Express-News, 7/8/99, pg 1A)
“In what could signal a new weapon in the war against gang violence, authorities declared a San Antonio neighborhood a ‘safety zone,’ and have obtained a temporary restraining order against 38 individual gang members.”
“Prohibited activities range from associating with other gang members and dealing drugs to possessing a gun, spray paint, beeper or cell phone.” Some 30 types of “prohibited behavior” are banned as a class A misdemeanor (up to one year in jail). The defendants range from age
15 to 23.
“Asked whether the injunction would trample the Bill of Rights in the process of allaying citizen fears, (San Antonio District Attorney Susan) Reed said, “We have rights, but you can’t abuse them.”
A member of the DA’s office is hopeful the injunction will stand since similar measure in California seem to be withstanding legal challenges.
A local resident, Rose Mary “Perez hopes the injunction succeeds for the sake of the children.... We want to salvage them and protect the little ones.”
--------
The editors of the San Antonio Express-News hails this effort as “a good tool” to end “the scourge of violent gangs without violating the U. S. Constitution....”
-------
Why should I feel safer because of this injunction?
- The people named in this injunction already are forbidden to have firearms.
- Drug dealing already is illegal.
- “Tagging” (spray paint graffiti) already is illegal.
- Cell phones and beepers are no threat.
(So now the kids’ relatives
and friends carry the cell phones and beepers.)
The only additional “achievements” of this injunction is to
- prohibit possession of selected legal products, and
- outlaw specified public and private gatherings.
San Antonio already has outlawed lock-blade knives (of any kind) with certain exemptions for those who have a “legitimate” reason for
possessing one.
Now San Antonio is determining which people may meet under any conditions. Note that disorderly conduct or other criminal activity is not required for any of these two people to be charged - only their presence at the same place, at the same time. Even in a private residence.
Apparently the City Council or any judge may now determine:
- who constitutes a gang,
- with whom you may associate,
- who may come to your house,
- whom you may visit, and
- who may legally possess spray paint, lock-blade knives, cell phones, and pagers.
What other groups could be similarly controlled?
What other legal items may become prohibited?
Where can this lead? Especially under pressure from gun control
groups?
[This message has been edited by Dennis (edited July 19, 1999).]