• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

This legal tactic can keep neo-Nazi protests out of your city?

This legal tactic can keep neo-Nazi protests out of your city?

  • Agree

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Disagree

    Votes: 4 100.0%

  • Other

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    4
JANFU

JANFU

Land by the Gulf Stream
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Dec 27, 2014
Messages
59,385
Reaction score
38,948
Location
Best Coast Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outl...hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-e:homepage/story

But there is another tool, sitting right in front of us, for reining in these groups: Most states have constitutional language, criminal statutes or both barring unauthorized paramilitary activity. Every state except New York and Georgia has a constitutional provision, akin to Virginia’s, requiring that “in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.” In other words, private armies are proscribed in 48 states. You can’t legally organize with others into battalions to fight those with whom you disagree. As University of Virginia law professor A.E. Dick Howard, who formerly directed the Virginia Commission on Constitutional Revision, has written, this provision “ensures the right of all citizens . . . to live free from the fear of an alien soldiery commanded by men who are not responsible to law and the political process” — an accurate description of the militant groups that invaded Charlottesville. (Washington, D.C., the site of alt-right protests planned for this weekend, has no such provisions.)

In addition to constitutional provisions, 28 states have criminal statutes that prohibit individuals from forming rogue military units and parading or drilling publicly with firearms, while 25 states have criminal statutes that bar two or more people from engaging in “paramilitary” activity, including using firearms or other “techniques” capable of causing injury or death in a civil disorder. A dozen states have statutes that prohibit falsely assuming the functions of law enforcement or wearing without authorization military uniforms or close imitations. On the books for years, these laws are rarely invoked. But with the invasion of public spaces and intimidation of citizens that we’ve seen in Charlottesville and around the country, it’s time states employ them to prohibit the coordinated use of weapons at demonstrations and rallies, whether through permitting conditions and other restrictions or criminal enforcement when warranted.
Click to expand...
 
JANFU said:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outl...hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-e:homepage/story
Click to expand...

So I think it's stupid to try and hush them up that makes their message Arcane for mystical when it becomes that people become interested.

I say put them on the highest podium and let them tell their story sunlight is the best disinfectant. Nobody will catch on to it. Their ideas are dumb.

I think it's a mistake to try and silence people number one that goes against the First Amendment several ways number two it keeps people from hearing how ridiculous they are.

So at that point the only source for their information is them and they can spin it to where it doesn't sound so bad.

Let them speak and let everyone criticize the hell out of them. That's probably one of the reasons why Free Speech was enshrined in the Constitution.
 
In order for any of that to apply you're going to have to prove that they are paramilitary groups vs simply protestors exercising their 2nd Amendment Rights. Assuming that the protestors will have guns. And none of that will do a damn thing to keep out protests by neo-nazi's that do not bring guns.

Also, the NY and Georgia constitutional provisions...that refers to the military...not militias.

Good try though. I commend the wish to get rid of neo-nazi's. Just do it in a constitutional way.
 
CLAX1911 said:
So I think it's stupid to try and hush them up that makes their message Arcane for mystical when it becomes that people become interested.

I say put them on the highest podium and let them tell their story sunlight is the best disinfectant. Nobody will catch on to it. Their ideas are dumb.

I think it's a mistake to try and silence people number one that goes against the First Amendment several ways number two it keeps people from hearing how ridiculous they are.

So at that point the only source for their information is them and they can spin it to where it doesn't sound so bad.

Let them speak and let everyone criticize the hell out of them. That's probably one of the reasons why Free Speech was enshrined in the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Most Americans are simply tired of their endemic violence and hate. The 2017 Charlottesville tiki-torch protest cost a woman her life.
 
Point of information: If we accept your article at face value, then it would more aptly apply to Antifas than those "neo-nazis" you point to.

Per you own citation, which states "You can’t legally organize with others into battalions to fight those with whom you disagree," this has been exemplified more often than not by Antifas as opposed to those labeled "neo-Nazi."
 
Kal'Stang said:
In order for any of that to apply you're going to have to prove that they are paramilitary groups vs simply protestors exercising their 2nd Amendment Rights. Assuming that the protestors will have guns. And none of that will do a damn thing to keep out protests by neo-nazi's that do not bring guns.

Also, the NY and Georgia constitutional provisions...that refers to the military...not militias.

Good try though. I commend the wish to get rid of neo-nazi's. Just do it in a constitutional way.
Click to expand...

It appears it is Constitutional, as it is aimed at those carrying weapons and lessens the chance of violence. It does not interfere with 1A Rights. Now will some groups challenge this? No doubt, then it may make its way to SCOTUS.
 
Rogue Valley said:
Most Americans are simply tired of their endemic violence and hate. The 2017 Charlottesville tiki-torch protest cost a woman her life.
Click to expand...

Question though...would things have gotten violent if Antifa and the like had just let those scumbags have their say? While no one died due to the actions of the counter protestors they were still responsible for part of the violence that happened that day. And by that I mean that they also started some violence of their own. Cause and effect.

This in no way is meant to excuse the actions of what happened that day by neo-nazi's. What happened was absolutely wrong, on many levels. But there are always two sides to any story.
 
Rogue Valley said:
Most Americans are simply tired of their endemic violence and hate. The 2017 Charlottesville tiki-torch protest cost a woman her life.
Click to expand...

It was one incident one incident is not endemic.

When people see other people being denied their freedom of speech they're going to side with the people being denied. They are even going to defend the people being denied their freedom of speech.

This is a boneheaded move. When you take away all incentive to be civil that's when violence becomes endemic
 
I think the best approach is a good warning from the local Sheriff to the effect: Go ahead and exercise your First Amendment rights. Just be warned that if you so much as spit on the sidewalk, you're goin' to jail.
 
CLAX1911 said:
It was one incident one incident is not endemic.

When people see other people being denied their freedom of speech they're going to side with the people being denied. They are even going to defend the people being denied their freedom of speech.

This is a boneheaded move. When you take away all incentive to be civil that's when violence becomes endemic
Click to expand...

Skinhead, Klucker, and Proud Boy rally's almost always degenerate into violence or vandalism. Americans are sick of it.

51fdeb22-5955-4286-9f9b-7fb8e0270e8a_750x422.jpg

Location in Charlottesville where Heather Heyer was killed by a white-nationalist last year.
 
JANFU said:
It appears it is Constitutional, as it is aimed at those carrying weapons and lessens the chance of violence. It does not interfere with 1A Rights. Now will some groups challenge this? No doubt, then it may make its way to SCOTUS.
Click to expand...

I didn't say that it would/might interfere with 1st Amendment rights. I said it might interfere with 2nd Amendment Rights. And even then it would only stop white supremacists from bringing guns (assuming its constitutional to stop such). It would not "keep neo-Nazi protests out of your city" that march without guns. Most protests in this country are conducted without guns anyways. So all that this would do, assuming its fully constitutional, would be to force people to leave their guns at home or in their car.
 
Rogue Valley said:
Skinhead, Klucker, and Proud Boy rally's almost always degenerate into violence or vandalism. Americans are sick of it.

51fdeb22-5955-4286-9f9b-7fb8e0270e8a_750x422.jpg

Location in Charlottesville where Heather Heyer was killed by a white-nationalist last year.
Click to expand...

Heather Heyer was killed by being crushed between two vehicles. What the OP talks about is guns, paramilitary groups etc etc. None of which would have stopped Ms. Heyer from being killed as she was killed with a car by a single individual, not a group.
 
Kal'Stang said:
I didn't say that it would/might interfere with 1st Amendment rights. I said it might interfere with 2nd Amendment Rights. And even then it would only stop white supremacists from bringing guns (assuming its constitutional to stop such). It would not "keep neo-Nazi protests out of your city" that march without guns. Most protests in this country are conducted without guns anyways. So all that this would do, assuming its fully constitutional, would be to force people to leave their guns at home or in their car.
Click to expand...

I brought 1A into it, not you to clarify their 1A Rights were not denied. It would not stop Neo Nazi's from demonstrating, but it would prevent them carrying weapons as they did last year in Charlottesville.
Any demonstrators, Neo Nazis or Antifa or others carrying baseball bats and other instruments that can cause massive bodily damage should also be precluded.
 
Last edited:
JANFU said:
I brought 1A into it, not you to calrify their 1A Rights were not denied. It would not stop Neo Nazi's from demonstrating, but it would prevent them carrying weapons as they did last year in Charlottesville.
Any demonstrators, Neo Nazis or Antifa or others carrying baseball bats and other instruments that can cause massive bodily damage should also be precluded.
Click to expand...

There has been some success at some college protests to keep weapons away. I think that as long as the protests aren't centered around the 2nd Amendment it might be constitutional to deny the carry of objects that can be used as weapons. So you may very well be right in your OP (at least as far as the weapons go...not so sure about the uniforms part though as that could be a 1st Amendment issue). But if that protest/march were to ever be centered on the 2nd Amendment then there might be a constitutional problem.
 
Kal'Stang said:
There has been some success at some college protests to keep weapons away. I think that as long as the protests aren't centered around the 2nd Amendment it might be constitutional to deny the carry of objects that can be used as weapons. So you may very well be right in your OP (at least as far as the weapons go...not so sure about the uniforms part though as that could be a 1st Amendment issue). But if that protest/march were to ever be centered on the 2nd Amendment then there might be a constitutional problem.
Click to expand...

Yes I agree on 2A. That idiot who used a spray can, lighting it and spraying around, not sure what side he was on, but that is not relevant, that can cause serious bodily harm.
 
Rogue Valley said:
Skinhead, Klucker, and Proud Boy rally's almost always degenerate into violence or vandalism. Americans are sick of it.
Click to expand...

Your post illustrates why it's important to use the 1945 definition to control NAZIism. Anybody can be CALLED a NAZI.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Question though...would things have gotten violent if Antifa and the like had just let those scumbags have their say? While no one died due to the actions of the counter protestors they were still responsible for part of the violence that happened that day. And by that I mean that they also started some violence of their own. Cause and effect.

This in no way is meant to excuse the actions of what happened that day by neo-nazi's. What happened was absolutely wrong, on many levels. But there are always two sides to any story.
Click to expand...

Well antifa and other protest groups like it are the best thing out there to give people reason to support neo-nazis or whatever groups they support that actively press against antifa.

When there's no one to fight antifa burns up cars smashes building facades and otherwise just wreak havoc upon whatever city is hosting them. With proud boys they have a Target thus justifying the existence of proud boys. Assuming they are neo-nazis.
 
JANFU said:
It appears it is Constitutional, as it is aimed at those carrying weapons and lessens the chance of violence. It does not interfere with 1A Rights. Now will some groups challenge this? No doubt, then it may make its way to SCOTUS.
Click to expand...

So now anyone with a weapon is in the military? Are you saying in order to exercise ones 1A rights, one must sacrifice their 2A rights? Where is any of this in the Constitution?
 
Aberration said:
So now anyone with a weapon is in the military? Are you saying in order to exercise ones 1A rights, one must sacrifice their 2A rights? Where is any of this in the Constitution?
Click to expand...
Where did I state such? Pls read the link. It clarifies differing State laws.
 
Rogue Valley said:
Skinhead, Klucker, and Proud Boy rally's almost always degenerate into violence or vandalism. Americans are sick of it.

51fdeb22-5955-4286-9f9b-7fb8e0270e8a_750x422.jpg

Location in Charlottesville where Heather Heyer was killed by a white-nationalist last year.
Click to expand...

Its important to note that the violence and vandalism that Proud Boy rallies degenerate to is not by the actions of the Proud Boys. That lies squarely on the shoulders of Antifa.
 
They should all be in jail. That's the legal tactic that we need.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom