Armed Protest

[Belsnickel]

With the events of January 6th a week in the rearview mirror and potential armed protests at state capitols all over the country as well as in DC, I have been thinking about armed protests, again. I was thinking about this a couple of years ago when the ACLU announced it would no longer defend groups engaged in armed protests. They said specifically for hate groups in the article, but it is a broader policy.

Anyway, I think we all see peaceful protests as protected speech under the First Amendment. We also know that physical acts of violence are not protected. But threats of violence are also not protected speech. These threats can fall under either incitement or fighting words, which both have some ambiguous definitions in the case law. So the question becomes: is an armed protest a threat?

In my view, the only reason to (openly) carry weapons while protesting is to announce that violence is an option if demands are not met. That is how I infer the presentation of weapons in such a situation. The question is whether or not the threat is specific enough to fall into the exceptions created regarding free speech. Again, with ambiguous case law it isn't the clearest yes or no on a legal stance. We also have to ask whether or not it should be protected speech. Do others infer armed protest in the same way I am, here?

Anyway, these were some of my thoughts, this morning. Honestly, if there were more equity within our firearms laws in this country I would probably not have as much of a problem with armed protest, but because of the way in which gun control disproportionately impacts people of color and the poor I feel like the constitutionality of armed protests leads to perpetuating the suppression of these communities.

[Au165]

(01-14-2021, 10:20 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: With the events of January 6th a week in the rearview mirror and potential armed protests at state capitols all over the country as well as in DC, I have been thinking about armed protests, again. I was thinking about this a couple of years ago when the ACLU announced it would no longer defend groups engaged in armed protests. They said specifically for hate groups in the article, but it is a broader policy.

Anyway, I think we all see peaceful protests as protected speech under the First Amendment. We also know that physical acts of violence are not protected. But threats of violence are also not protected speech. These threats can fall under either incitement or fighting words, which both have some ambiguous definitions in the case law. So the question becomes: is an armed protest a threat?

In my view, the only reason to (openly) carry weapons while protesting is to announce that violence is an option if demands are not met. That is how I infer the presentation of weapons in such a situation. The question is whether or not the threat is specific enough to fall into the exceptions created regarding free speech. Again, with ambiguous case law it isn't the clearest yes or no on a legal stance. We also have to ask whether or not it should be protected speech. Do others infer armed protest in the same way I am, here?

Anyway, these were some of my thoughts, this morning. Honestly, if there were more equity within our firearms laws in this country I would probably not have as much of a problem with armed protest, but because of the way in which gun control disproportionately impacts people of color and the poor I feel like the constitutionality of armed protests leads to perpetuating the suppression of these communities.

Public displays of firearms are meant for intimidation purposes. In reality, if we would enforce the anti militia laws already in place I think we could curb a lot of this as many of these people who feel the need to do this are part of a "militia".

[BmorePat87]

(01-14-2021, 10:20 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: With the events of January 6th a week in the rearview mirror and potential armed protests at state capitols all over the country as well as in DC, I have been thinking about armed protests, again. I was thinking about this a couple of years ago when the ACLU announced it would no longer defend groups engaged in armed protests. They said specifically for hate groups in the article, but it is a broader policy.

Anyway, I think we all see peaceful protests as protected speech under the First Amendment. We also know that physical acts of violence are not protected. But threats of violence are also not protected speech. These threats can fall under either incitement or fighting words, which both have some ambiguous definitions in the case law. So the question becomes: is an armed protest a threat?

In my view, the only reason to (openly) carry weapons while protesting is to announce that violence is an option if demands are not met. That is how I infer the presentation of weapons in such a situation. The question is whether or not the threat is specific enough to fall into the exceptions created regarding free speech. Again, with ambiguous case law it isn't the clearest yes or no on a legal stance. We also have to ask whether or not it should be protected speech. Do others infer armed protest in the same way I am, here?

Anyway, these were some of my thoughts, this morning. Honestly, if there were more equity within our firearms laws in this country I would probably not have as much of a problem with armed protest, but because of the way in which gun control disproportionately impacts people of color and the poor I feel like the constitutionality of armed protests leads to perpetuating the suppression of these communities.

There's a lot of reasons why people own and carry guns. Part of that group includes people who have irrational fears and insecurities. I think that's a lot of crossover between that subset and those who engage in armed protest. 

Whether it's insecurities that they feel they have to make up for with a show of force or a fear of [insert boogieman they fear here] taking something from them, they are prepared to use force.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(01-14-2021, 10:39 AM)Au165 Wrote: Public displays of firearms are meant for intimidation purposes. In reality, if we would enforce the anti militia laws already in place I think we could curb a lot of this as many of these people who feel the need to do this are part of a "militia".

Large scale protests are designed to intimidate as well.  That's the entire point of them.

(01-14-2021, 12:29 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: There's a lot of reasons why people own and carry guns. Part of that group includes people who have irrational fears and insecurities. I think that's a lot of crossover between that subset and those who engage in armed protest. 

Whether it's insecurities that they feel they have to make up for with a show of force or a fear of [insert boogieman they fear here] taking something from them, they are prepared to use force.

I have to say these two answers are troubling to me, as they both come from intelligent posters whose opinions I respect.  For me it comes down to the law.  If open carry is legal where they are protesting then open carrying while protesting is perfectly acceptable.  It doesn't matter if it intimidates other people, that's not a bar the action has to hurdle.  "Intimidation" is obviously subjective, what intimidates one person does not intimidate another.  That being the case, whose standard of what constitutes intimidation do we use?  The answer is very simple, the law's interpretation.  Ergo, if the protest is conducted within the law the fact that a particular individual, or individuals, are intimidated by this lawful action is irrelevant. 

As for the ACLU, I used to respect them, but they're going down the SPLC path and becoming a partisan organization.  They should remove the "civil liberties" portion of their acronym post haste.

[GMDino]

(01-14-2021, 12:29 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: There's a lot of reasons why people own and carry guns. Part of that group includes people who have irrational fears and insecurities. I think that's a lot of crossover between that subset and those who engage in armed protest. 

Whether it's insecurities that they feel they have to make up for with a show of force or a fear of [insert boogieman they fear here] taking something from them, they are prepared to use force.

The bold was my first thought about it.  Not everyone who open carries has s small penis and wants to look tough. 

But all seriousness aside when they SAY they are bringing their weapons because they are going a "war" or "battle" it sure makes it hard to defend them.  That's what happened on 1/6.

Just like the guys who go in groups to a business with guns slightly bigger than probably would be needed for "self defense" just to flaunt the open carry laws.  You don't have to a jerk about it but yeah, it's legal.

You can and you should are sometimes two very different things.  Usually that difference is based on intent.

WI boy is a good example.  He brought a gun to another state to "defend" something he knew nothing about and ended up killing two people in self-defense.  Can he do that (ignoring the guns being owned illegally), sure.  Should he do that.  Probably not as he already had intent to use the gun to "defend" himself somewhere were he shouldn't have been.

[Belsnickel]

(01-14-2021, 01:19 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Large scale protests are designed to intimidate as well.  That's the entire point of them.

Not with the threat of violence, though. There is a distinction, there.

(01-14-2021, 01:19 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I have to say these two answers are troubling to me, as they both come from intelligent posters whose opinions I respect.  For me it comes down to the law.  If open carry is legal where they are protesting then open carrying while protesting is perfectly acceptable.  It doesn't matter if it intimidates other people, that's not a bar the action has to hurdle.  "Intimidation" is obviously subjective, what intimidates one person does not intimidate another.  That being the case, whose standard of what constitutes intimidation do we use?  The answer is very simple, the law's interpretation.  Ergo, if the protest is conducted within the law the fact that a particular individual, or individuals, are intimidated by this lawful action is irrelevant. 

I'm not saying I disagree with you on this, because I am really trying to hash out my thought process on this issue. I haven't fully committed to one side or the other. I think that, constitutionally speaking, the exceptions for 1A protections are specific and narrow for very good reasons. Fighting words and incitement, for this reason, have to be explicit in their expression in most case law. So jumping off from the idea of "if it's legal to open carry then it should be legal," at what point would rhetoric from the armed protestor make the speech unprotected by the 1A? This isn't necessarily asking you for the case law on it, but more about where your opinion lies. I think we would both agree that at some point, even it legally carrying, the rhetoric from the protestor could move the act into an unprotected realm. It is just a matter of where that line is.

[BmorePat87]

(01-14-2021, 01:19 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Large scale protests are designed to intimidate as well.  That's the entire point of them.


I have to say these two answers are troubling to me, as they both come from intelligent posters whose opinions I respect.  For me it comes down to the law.  If open carry is legal where they are protesting then open carrying while protesting is perfectly acceptable.  It doesn't matter if it intimidates other people, that's not a bar the action has to hurdle.  "Intimidation" is obviously subjective, what intimidates one person does not intimidate another.  That being the case, whose standard of what constitutes intimidation do we use?  The answer is very simple, the law's interpretation.  Ergo, if the protest is conducted within the law the fact that a particular individual, or individuals, are intimidated by this lawful action is irrelevant. 

As for the ACLU, I used to respect them, but they're going down the SPLC path and becoming a partisan organization.  They should remove the "civil liberties" portion of their acronym post haste.

You're troubled that I acknowledged that some people who carry guns are compensating for insecurities and fears? I didn't say everyone, I just referred to a subset. 

I'm not advocating that people who engage in armed protest where it is legal should not be allowed to, but I am acknowledging that some are armed for reasons of personal fear or insecurities. 

[Benton]

Good topic.

It's one of those times one right may or may not have an issue with another right. I guess my only issue is the threat of violence is always there, it doesn't just hinge on being armed with a firearm. If I'm protesting something and a guy twice my side is shouting in my face and acting aggressive, I could take that as a sign of potential violence. Overall, I think we have to look at individual actions.

[BmorePat87]

(01-14-2021, 01:32 PM)GMDino Wrote: The bold was my first thought about it.  Not everyone who open carries has s small penis and wants to look tough. 

But all seriousness aside when they SAY they are bringing their weapons because they are going a "war" or "battle" it sure makes it hard to defend them.  That's what happened on 1/6.

Just like the guys who go in groups to a business with guns slightly bigger than probably would be needed for "self defense" just to flaunt the open carry laws.  You don't have to a jerk about it but yeah, it's legal.

You can and you should are sometimes two very different things.  Usually that difference is based on intent.

WI boy is a good example.  He brought a gun to another state to "defend" something he knew nothing about and ended up killing two people in self-defense.  Can he do that (ignoring the guns being owned illegally), sure.  Should he do that.  Probably not as he already had intent to use the gun to "defend" himself somewhere were he shouldn't have been.

Anyone walking around with weapons like those clowns were carrying in Kenosha has a tiny dick, got their ass kicked in high school, and/or seriously has something wrong with them. 

Clearly the goal in that scenario is to present an image of toughness or intimidation, not to defend yourself.

[Au165]

(01-14-2021, 01:48 PM)Benton Wrote: Good topic.

It's one of those times one right may or may not have an issue with another right. I guess my only issue is the threat of violence is always there, it doesn't just hinge on being armed with a firearm. If I'm protesting something and a guy twice my side is shouting in my face and acting aggressive, I could take that as a sign of potential violence. Overall, I think we have to look at individual actions.

My problem is that people at these specific armed protests have expressed interest in violence online, so by showing up with the weapon they have taken one step further to violence and therefore should be arrested. If the organizer themselves have shown an interest in violence then anyone at the event with a weapon should be arrested. If a random guy shows up to a protest about Christianity in schools with a gun over his should let him do him. I think right now it's more about the rhetoric and atmosphere around what is going on.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(01-14-2021, 01:39 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Not with the threat of violence, though. There is a distinction, there.

 

There is a distinction to be sure,  It's not a distinction that get's used appropriately.  There were plenty of BLM protests in which direct violence was advocated by members f the crowd, either verbally or by placard.  I didn't see anyone labeling these protests as inherently threatening.

Quote:I'm not saying I disagree with you on this, because I am really trying to hash out my thought process on this issue. I haven't fully committed to one side or the other. I think that, constitutionally speaking, the exceptions for 1A protections are specific and narrow for very good reasons. Fighting words and incitement, for this reason, have to be explicit in their expression in most case law. So jumping off from the idea of "if it's legal to open carry then it should be legal," at what point would rhetoric from the armed protestor make the speech unprotected by the 1A? This isn't necessarily asking you for the case law on it, but more about where your opinion lies. I think we would both agree that at some point, even it legally carrying, the rhetoric from the protestor could move the act into an unprotected realm. It is just a matter of where that line is.

I get the point but I also think the line is clearly delineated by the law that governs criminal threats.  I don't think it needs to be any more complicated than that.  I was raised around guns, both my parent's families were career military.  I am comfortable with them and they don't inherently frighten me.  That said, I completely get why they do unsettle or frighten some people.  However, their fear or dislike should in no way have any bearing on my being able to act within the law.

(01-14-2021, 01:45 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: You're troubled that I acknowledged that some people who carry guns are compensating for insecurities and fears? I didn't say everyone, I just referred to a subset. 

I'm not advocating that people who engage in armed protest where it is legal should not be allowed to, but I am acknowledging that some are armed for reasons of personal fear or insecurities. 

My apologies if I inferred a more negative assertion on your part than was intended.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(01-14-2021, 01:57 PM)Au165 Wrote: My problem is that people at these specific armed protests have expressed interest in violence online, so by showing up with the weapon they have taken one step further to violence and therefore should be arrested. If the organizer themselves have shown an interest in violence then anyone at the event with a weapon should be arrested. If a random guy shows up to a protest about Christianity in schools with a gun over his should let him do him. I think right now it's more about the rhetoric and atmosphere around what is going on.

I could not disagree with you more.  You're literally violating two Constitutional rights here.  Someone can spout off online all day about how they can't wait for Bugaloo, but unless they break the law in their statements then they should in no way inhibit their ability to protest lawfully

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(01-14-2021, 01:48 PM)Benton Wrote: Good topic.

It's one of those times one right may or may not have an issue with another right. I guess my only issue is the threat of violence is always there, it doesn't just hinge on being armed with a firearm. If I'm protesting something and a guy twice my side is shouting in my face and acting aggressive, I could take that as a sign of potential violence. Overall, I think we have to look at individual actions.

Could not agree more on all counts.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

Interestingly enough, I came across this article today. How apropos.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/01/guns-capitol-riot-trump-crisis.html

The sad truth is this is very much the current tactic of the anti-gun left. I particularly enjoyed this snippet.


How do we permit a populace armed to the teeth to safely march, to rally, to watch its government in action, to confront and engage with politicians at will? When does the mere presence of a gun become a threat?

Their endgame is, and always was, a disarmed populace. For our own safety, of course, and because democracy.

[Au165]

(01-14-2021, 07:11 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I could not disagree with you more.  You're literally violating two Constitutional rights here.  Someone can spout off online all day about how they can't wait for Bugaloo, but unless they break the law in their statements then they should in no way inhibit their ability to protest lawfully

Not at all. If I go to your house and stand out front with a gun I have violated no laws. If I tell you I’m going to do bodily harm and then show up at your house with a gun I have.

For instance a guy was just charged for saying online he wanted to kill Pelosi and then showing up at the capitol with 2500 rounds. People every day say they’d like for her to be killed and aren’t charged, it is only after doing things that would escalate that further (like showing up with the means to do so) does it become illegal.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(01-14-2021, 08:44 PM)Au165 Wrote: Not at all. If I go to your house and stand out front with a gun I have violated no laws.

Well, depending on the jurisdiction, but point taken.

If I tell you I’m going to do bodily harm and then show up at your house with a gun I have.[/quote]

To be sure, as a threat has been issued directly at your person.  That was not the scenario you initially described.

Quote:For instance a guy was just charged for saying online he wanted to kill Pelosi and then showing up at the capitol with 2500 rounds. People every day say they’d like for her to be killed and aren’t charged, it is only after doing things that would escalate that further (like showing up with the means to do so) does it become illegal.

Again, this is a direct threat against a person, which wasn't how you framed your initial point.  I agree, in the instance you just provided, you have an actionable crime.  Otherwise you have nothing different than Madonna saying she wants to blow up the White House, which is actually very specific, and yet she was not arrested or charged.

[Au165]

(01-14-2021, 08:56 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Well, depending on the jurisdiction, but point taken.


To be sure, as a threat has been issued directly at your person.  That was not the scenario you initially described.


Again, this is a direct threat against a person, which wasn't how you framed your initial point.  I agree, in the instance you just provided, you have an actionable crime.  Otherwise you have nothing different than Madonna saying she wants to blow up the White House, which is actually very specific, and yet she was not arrested or charged.

The question then becomes how much “threatening” has to be done? If I post online someone should kill the “squad” multiple times, then show up at a protest the squad is at with a gun, are we there yet? What if a group for the protest is setup and the participants said “we need to carry guns to show we mean business”, does that now meet the legal definition of “intimidation” since that was their purpose, to create fear in specific people?

The line between rights and crimes is a pretty Gray area, especially in a digital world where people say crazy shit online but crazy people are also online ready to do crazy shit and tell you they are about to do it. Again, I said earlier if carrying the gun is something your just doing because you always do, that’s great. In the context of certain events however or with certain people it needs to be seen for what the reason for having it really is.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(01-14-2021, 09:20 PM)Au165 Wrote: The question then becomes how much “threatening” has to be done? If I post online someone should kill the “squad” multiple times, then show up at a protest the squad is at, are we there yet?

Probably, but I can't be definitive without a specific statement.  Saying "someone" should do it versus "I will do it" is a legal distinction that would likely be hard to hurdle if you wanted to charge said individual.

Quote:What if a group for the protest is setup and the participants said “we need to carry guns to show we mean business”, does that now meet the legal definition of “intimidation” since that was their purpose, to create fear in specific people?

Absolutely not.  The phrase "we mean business" is not inherently violent nor advocating violence.  You can absolutely perceive it as such, but it doesn't reach the legal definition of a criminal threat.

Quote:The line between rights and crimes is a pretty Gray area, especially in a digital world where people say crazy shit online but crazy people are also online ready to do crazy shit and tell you they are about to do it.

It's actually not, and this is what worries me.  The law is pretty specific about what constitutes a threat and what does not.  The number of crazy people online versus the number who ever do anything illegal is probably over a hundred thousand to one, if not more.

Quote:Again, I said earlier if carrying the gun is something your just doing because you always do, that’s great. In the context of certain events however or with certain people it needs to be seen for what the reason for having it really is.

Except you don't get to be the arbiter of that decision.  The reason why is the Constitution.  I know the slippery slope argument is overplayed, but the minute you start limiting speech that isn't criminal you've literally started the countdown on the death of free speech.  You're a reasonable man, and I like to think I am too (I am but I'm being humble   ) and the fact that we can disagree on this shows just how far the gap would be between two unreasonable people.

The bottom line is this, do you want more freedom or do you want more security?  I will always err on the side of personal freedom because I know how historically rare it is and how easy it is to lose.  If I lose my life because of this freedom I see it as a small price to pay for maintaining said freedom for my nephews and future generations.

[Au165]

(01-14-2021, 09:40 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Except you don't get to be the arbiter of that decision.  The reason why is the Constitution.  I know the slippery slope argument is overplayed, but the minute you start limiting speech that isn't criminal you've literally started the countdown on the death of free speech.  You're a reasonable man, and I like to think I am too (I am but I'm being humble   ) and the fact that we can disagree on this shows just how far the gap would be between two unreasonable people.

The bottom line is this, do you want more freedom or do you want more security?  I will always err on the side of personal freedom because I know how historically rare it is and how easy it is to lose.  If I lose my life because of this freedom I see it as a small price to pay for maintaining said freedom for my nephews and future generations.

The Supreme Court has held multiple times that your freedoms can actually be restricted for the wholes greater security. We have judges who make those decisions and it’s not a matter of if I or you do, it’s if they do and that “they” evolves and changes over time. I like freedom but I forfeit it every day, as you do, for the safety and security of others. Of course there are overreaches, heck the current President tried to take our right to a fairly administered election away, eventually they find balance but it seems some like “guns” are simply sacrilegious to ever challenge, which I think is my biggest problem. We act like the guys who allowed slavery were infallible when talking about the 2nd amendment. The issue now is it’s become too much of our culture to ever broach again.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(01-14-2021, 09:58 PM)Au165 Wrote: The Supreme Court has held multiple times that your freedoms can actually be restricted for the wholes  greater security. We have judges who make those decisions and it’s not a matter of if I or you do, it’s if they do and that “they” evolves and changes over time. I like freedom but I forfeit it every day, as you do, for the safety and security of others.

Of course.  It's clearly about striking a balance.  I'm just going to err on the side of personal freedom every single time.  We've had millennia of governments lording over their people.  We've had barely over two hundred years of erring on the side of liberty, in one nation.  You want "progressive"?  Well it doesn't get more progressive than the right to defend yourself.

Quote:Of course there are overreaches, heck the current President tried to take our right to a fairly administered election away,

Which, honestly, I would hope is all the proof you would need that erring on the side of personal liberty is of paramount importance.  Don't trade one set of dictatorial rules for another.

Quote:eventually they find balance but it seems some like “guns” are simply sacrilegious to ever challenge, which I think is my biggest problem. We act like the guys who allowed slavery were infallible when talking about the 2nd amendment. The issue now is it’s become too much of our culture to ever broach again.

The UK allowed slavery.  The Framers recognized that it wasn't the hill to die on to enact the Republic they desired.  Was this the wrong tactic, maybe.  It certainly wasn't objectively wrong given the entirety of the circumstances.  As far as the 2nd Amendment, it is unique in history.  In all other societies the ruling class has expended tremendous effort to keep arms out of the hands of the common folk.  Why do you think this is?  Say we had no second amendment and Trump had succeeded in his plans, would you be happy you had no means available to confront your oppressors at that point?  I 100% support the Second amendment as I strongly believe that the means of self defense should not be monopolized by the government.  Yes, that means bad actors will use that right to perpetrate terrible crimes on occasion, which is why our justice system should punish such people in a harsh and unforgiving manner.  

What I cannot countenance is a system that presumes criminal intent in its citizenry, that assumes the citizenry is not responsible enough to wield a power previously restricted to the ruling class.  Broach the topic all you want, but the reason for supporting the 2A is no different now than when it was written, and no amount of criminal activity by garbage human beings will convince me that relinquishing that unique right is acceptable, ever.