The 1st Amendment Versus the 2nd

A couple of weeks ago I read an article about the continuing protests for and against all things Confederate. It involved an older black man in Denton, Texas who wanted a Confederate monument relocated from its current location in front of the county courthouse. A young white man showed up to counter-protest and began shouting and arguing.

While the older man, William Hudspeth, held a cardboard sign that said "Please move the statute to a confederate museum," the young man, Stephen Passariello, held a loaded AR-15.

Given the mass shooting in Charleston, Hudspeth was obviously concerned about the situation. The police were called, but since open carry is legal in Texas all they could do was recommend that Pasariello use a sling and shoulder the weapon since carrying it in his hand was making people "uneasy."

This weekend there was a rally in support of the Confederate flag at Georgia’s Stone Mountain Park (most famous for a massive carving of Confederate leaders and for being the birthplace of the second incarnation of the Ku Klux Klan).

A counter-protester burned a Confederate flag and that led to this incident:

IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/knFLjw1.jpg)

These two incidents have really got me wondering if the 2nd Amendment is compatible with the 1st Amendment or if it's become a tool to suppress debate and discussion.

When does a firearm transform from something that (supposedly) protects citizens from government tyranny and oppression into something that allows one group of citizens threaten, intimidate, and cow another group of citizens because they don't like what's being said?

What's even more troubling about these two incidents is that I can only see them happening more frequently. Open carry laws have been implemented in just about every state. Making that problem worse is the fact that America has a clear double standard about who's really allowed to openly carry firearms.

The Confederate flag supporters at Stone Mountain were armed to the teeth, openly walking around with military-grade weapons and dressed in camo and no one batted an eye. Yet two incidents that led to the #BlackLivesMatter movement involved black people (one a mere child) being killed for holding toy guns.

My sense of the history of personal firearms is that it's very rare that gun ownership is used as a means to overthrow tyrannical governments. More often, what happens is that armed vigilante groups coalesce and use their weapons to attack the minority of the day, usually with the tacit support of the local authorities. There are exceptions like John Brown, but they're pretty swiftly outgunned and eradicated, whereas the authoritorian vigilantes become co-opted into the power structure.

Any time an open carry person, that is not a member of law enforcement and on duty, responds to an argument by putting their hand on a gun, they should go to jail - if not remove the license to open carry on the spot at least.

I am sorry but when you are mad, upset or agitated, any sane person would choose to reach for a gun under absolutely zero circumstances.

It is only a matter of time before one of these open carry hotheads murders someone in plain sight. The response will be predictable as the Right Wing tries to frame this as a mental health issue.

Isn't that picture basically aggravated assault? I mean, why else would that brave patriot, that gallant defender of the 2nd Amendment, gesture to draw his weapon in what is clearly the midst of a heated argument? I can't help but think if that guy was black and had is hand on his gun, those cops wouldn't be trying to peacefully diffuse the situation.

Nicholaas wrote:

Isn't that picture basically aggravated assault? I mean, why else would that brave patriot, that gallant defender of the 2nd Amendment, gesture to draw his weapon in what is clearly the midst of a heated argument? I can't help but think if that guy was black and had is hand on his gun, those cops wouldn't be trying to peacefully diffuse the situation.

Forget even that much.. I've seen a few videos that show the extreme difference in open carry if you are Black vs White. There's an enormous double standard (racist) in our country between a Black person exercising his/her rights to open carry vs a White person.

Nicholaas wrote:

Isn't that picture basically aggravated assault? I mean, why else would that brave patriot, that gallant defender of the 2nd Amendment, gesture to draw his weapon in what is clearly the midst of a heated argument? I can't help but think if that guy was black and had is hand on his gun, those cops wouldn't be trying to peacefully diffuse the situation.

As we've seen repeatedly over the last year (and has happened for far, far longer but without as much visibility), if that guy was black, he would've been tackled by five cops, tasered multiple times, and at the very least, threatened with a firearm -- just for raising his voice and looking scary. And that's describing the situation if he was an unarmed black man.

Armed? He would've been shot within seconds of cops arriving on the scene.

You know I should have back tracked. That guy never should have been allowed to leave the house with a gun. He was already in an agitated state of mind before he even saw or knew his agitator. Does that sound like responsible gun ownership? Does that sound like the type of person you want open carrying? (multiple weapons including an assault rifle?)

What does he think if someone else showed up to pick a bone with him that was also open carry and decided to have their hand on weapon?

I wonder what the response would be to a large, organized group of black protesters peacefully exercising their rights to openly carry. Would the police, the NRA, Fox News pundits, and Tea Party-supporting citizens be OK with it? What mental gymnastics would they use to justify not being OK with it?

Assuming it didn't end up as some kind of tragic massacre, that is... Which, granted, is a pretty poor assumption to make.

gewy wrote:

Assuming it didn't end up as some kind of tragic massacre, that is... Which, granted, is a pretty poor assumption to make.

Given the military-style police response to large, organized groups of unarmed black protestors peacefully exercising their rights to publicly assemble, I don't think your assumption is wrong.

Yeah, the first thing I thought of when I heard about this (and saw the picture) was - oh man, is that guy fortunate that he's white.

And then it occurred to me if the guy wasn't white, it's extremely unlikely he'd be open carrying and/or being so belligerent around a cop. That's some Level 10 Police Antagonizing there, and non-whites usually get stopped around level 2 or level 0.5.

Or level -1. Whatever.

On the other part, though, what this country considers "free speech" is ridiculous.

And then it occurred to me if the guy wasn't white, it's extremely unlikely he'd be open carrying and/or being so belligerent around a cop.

Wait, I thought the entire reason black people were getting shot was because they were being belligerent? That's what my Facebook timeline seems so focused on.

And lets be honest, where would there be enough black people with open carry permits to assemble?
Has anyone pulled statistics one the racial (and gender, and age) demographics of current open carry permits?

I'd wager that it would be extremely difficult for a black man to have an open carry permit or for any extended length of time.

fangblackbone wrote:

And lets be honest, where would there be enough black people with open carry permits to assemble?
Has anyone pulled statistics one the racial (and gender, and age) demographics of current open carry permits?

I'd wager that it would be extremely difficult for a black man to have an open carry permit or for any extended length of time.

Open carry isn't by permit, concealed is (except in a few places). If a state allows open carry anyone can do it.

You have to have a gun permit thought, right?

fangblackbone wrote:

You have to have a gun permit thought, right?

Lol no.

What is this thing you call a "gun permit"?

So the background check doesn't involve some kind of permit? Wow!

That is way more depressing than I thought.

fangblackbone wrote:

So the background check doesn't involve some kind of permit?

IMAGE(http://giphy.com/gifs/funny-friends-hilarious-KiaU2EUyxjQB2)

No.

fangblackbone wrote:

So the background check doesn't involve some kind of permit?

BG check is to see if you are legally allowed to own/purchase a gun. Assuming you can, and the stae allows open carry, a gun on the hip is no different than a cell phone.

And no background checks on long guns in many/most states.

That's insane.

The way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to take away his ability to get a gun in the first place.

So license to drive a car but gun, no?
We do have a LOT of problems.

fangblackbone wrote:

So license to drive a car but gun, no?
We do have a LOT of problems.

That are easily solved by giving more people guns.. that way if everyone had a gun we could make sure that someone will shoot someone trying to shoot someone who would then shoot that other someone who shot the first shooter.. but then of course some other shooter would see that 3rd shooter and think omg thats a bad person l need to shoot them quick.

fangblackbone wrote:

So license to drive a car but gun, no?
We do have a LOT of problems.

The canned answer to this is that there is no constitutional right to drive.

I wish I was kidding.

Paleocon wrote:
fangblackbone wrote:

So license to drive a car but gun, no?
We do have a LOT of problems.

The canned answer to this is that there is no constitutional right to drive.

I wish I was kidding.

Which kinda brings things full circle to the question I posed.

What happens when someone's constitutional right to bear arms is used to suppress or limit someone else's constitutional right to freedom on speech?

Dr.Ghastly wrote:
fangblackbone wrote:

And lets be honest, where would there be enough black people with open carry permits to assemble?
Has anyone pulled statistics one the racial (and gender, and age) demographics of current open carry permits?

I'd wager that it would be extremely difficult for a black man to have an open carry permit or for any extended length of time.

Open carry isn't by permit, concealed is (except in a few places). If a state allows open carry anyone can do it.

You also don't need to be a resident of that state.
I have a brother who lives in MO. I had looked into the state laws for the states I would travel through between NH and there because I have a handgun that belongs to him and instead of shipping it I figured I would just transport it when we visited. I was surprised to discover that only NY wouldn't recognise my NH concealed carry permit and I could also open carry in any of those states if I chose. I personally find the open carry practice ridiculous and dangerous. I also decided to keep the gun, I've had it since he joined the AF in the 80s anyway, when he came out as a vocal proponent for open carry.

OG_slinger wrote:
Paleocon wrote:
fangblackbone wrote:

So license to drive a car but gun, no?
We do have a LOT of problems.

The canned answer to this is that there is no constitutional right to drive.

I wish I was kidding.

Which kinda brings things full circle to the question I posed.

What happens when someone's constitutional right to bear arms is used to suppress or limit someone else's constitutional right to freedom on speech?

I would imagine that situation should be handled by assault laws (if police were doing their jobs properly). The second someone puts a hand to a holster, they are assaulting someone else (in the legal sense). Of course I'm not a lawyer, so grain of salt and all that.

Nevin73 wrote:

I would imagine that situation should be handled by assault laws (if police were doing their jobs properly). The second someone puts a hand to a holster, they are assaulting someone else (in the legal sense). Of course I'm not a lawyer, so grain of salt and all that.

When someone's clearly threatening you with a firearm, sure. But what about the chilling effect that can happen if a group of armed people show up to counter-protest?

Even if they don't put a hand to their holsters they are still sending a loud and clear message that you better watch what you say and how you say it otherwise may very likely be violence.

OG_slinger wrote:
Paleocon wrote:
fangblackbone wrote:

So license to drive a car but gun, no?
We do have a LOT of problems.

The canned answer to this is that there is no constitutional right to drive.

I wish I was kidding.

Which kinda brings things full circle to the question I posed.

What happens when someone's constitutional right to bear arms is used to suppress or limit someone else's constitutional right to freedom on speech?

Historically (and I can't remember where I saw this) by law SCOTUS has upheld that higher level amendments trump lower unless specifically added to override. So the first amendment should absolutely trump the second.

Nevin73 wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:
Paleocon wrote:
fangblackbone wrote:

So license to drive a car but gun, no?
We do have a LOT of problems.

The canned answer to this is that there is no constitutional right to drive.

I wish I was kidding.

Which kinda brings things full circle to the question I posed.

What happens when someone's constitutional right to bear arms is used to suppress or limit someone else's constitutional right to freedom on speech?

I would imagine that situation should be handled by assault laws (if police were doing their jobs properly). The second someone puts a hand to a holster, they are assaulting someone else (in the legal sense). Of course I'm not a lawyer, so grain of salt and all that.

Assault no (that requires actual action I believe) but intimidation? Hell yes. I'm not a lawyer either but I'm pretty sure intimidation through threat of force is illegal.