Constitutional Issues Relating To Recent Clashes Between Police And Protestors

[Tomb1]

Second-Amendment proponents always tout the argument that the second amendment was designed to protect the people from "tyranny by the government."

"Tyranny by the government" is typically interpreted to mean a government that uses police and/or military force to quash amendments under the Bill of Rights, such as the First Amendment.

The first amendment states that "Congress shall make no law...abridging...the right of the people peaceably to assemble."

Keep in mind that the US Supreme Court has ruled that the Constitution prohibits the president from effecting any executive order that violates the bill of rights, including the right of the people to peaceably assemble. Furthermore, the Supremacy Clause prohibits the State Legislatures/Governors/Mayors from passing laws or effecting executive actions that violate the bill of rights, including the right of the people to peaceably assemble.

The Second Amendment states that "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." As stated above, the history and purpose of the second amendment pertains to citizens being able to forcefully protect themselves from having their freedoms under the Bill of Rights abridged through police and/or military force. A "Free State" is intended to correspond to freedom from intrusion upon individual rights founded in the Constitution, including the right to peaceably assemble.

For purposes of the following questions reference to protests/protesters is not to be construed as reference to looters/rioters:

1.) Isn't it true that breaking up protests through police and/or military force under the guise of "enforcing curfews" violates the first amendment right to peacefully assemble? (My answer: Of course it does)

2.) If you answered yes, do you agree that the plain language and/or purpose of the second amendment gives protesters (and/or a well-regulated militia group) the right to bear arms against the police and/or military in defense of the protesters having their first amendment right to peacefully assemble infringed upon? (My answer: Of course it does)

3.) If you answered no to either question, please elaborate on your personal modifications to the first and second amendment.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

The simple reason for the inconsistency you note is that a sizable majority of second amendment activists aren't really concerned about "tyranny from the government " (although that may actually be a valid point in the abstract, even if it isn't actually the "originalist" interpretation of the Consitutition the supporters claim it is) but are just afraid of minorities. It's not actually the government they're afraid of (beyond the fact that they fear the government enacting measures that make them defenseless against what they consider the actual threats). They think if they don't have guns they're going to be murdered by terrorists or gang members.

Probably the quickest way to get gun control in this country is if all the Floyd protesters started arming themselves to the teeth like the lockdown protesters. I suspect support for the second amendment would go way down in that scenario.

 

[ceecee]

Yes to both.

I seriously doubt Trump is going to care that SCOTUS "prohibits the president from effecting any executive order that violates the bill of rights, including the right of the people to peaceably assemble" since he's already done it. Not to mention the multiple, filmed attacks on the press, including arrest. It's not like anyone is going to hold him accountable either and the DoJ are apparently his private lawyers.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Oh, yes to both, also.

 

[Maou]

The moment the protest turns violent, is the moment the government can act in defense (note peacefully assemble). Simple as that. Someone going around instigating violence among the protestors, is what is creating these riots and unrests. The government can act against terrorists too. The police do try to prevent escalation, and try to dissuade violence by a show of force (arguably the worst part). Otherwise, without the threat of authority. Some protestors turn violent/loot. Others, stay peaceful. So really its a bad situation for both sides right now.

 

[Tomb1]

For purposes of the following questions reference to protests/protesters is not to be construed as reference to looters/rioters:

1.) Isn't it true that breaking up protests through police and/or military force under the guise of "enforcing curfews" violates the first amendment right to peacefully assemble? (My answer: Of course it does)

2.) If you answered yes, do you agree that the plain language and/or purpose of the second amendment gives protesters (and/or a well-regulated militia group) the right to bear arms against the police and/or military in defense of the protesters having their first amendment right to peacefully assemble infringed upon? (My answer: Of course it does)

3.) If you answered no to either question, please elaborate on your personal modifications to the first and second amendment.

These questions suddenly carry high relevance to current events at this moment in American History.

Three Injured in Shooting as Rival Armed Militias Converge on Louisville

"The NFAC was formed this summer by Johnson, who refers to himself as the “Official Grant Master Jay.” He previously assembled about 1,000 militia members to march through Georgia’s Stone Mountain Park in protest of a confederate monument there. For Saturday’s rally, he asked members to arrive armed and dressed in black.

About 200 NFAC members—some from as far away as Oregon—answered the call, according to reporters on the ground, gathering in Baxter Park Saturday morning before a planned march to Jefferson Square Park. Dozens of Three Percenters also showed up in camouflage and carrying guns."

Lemme hear more board member opinions on whether well-regulated militia groups have the constitutional right to fire upon federal/state police and/or military in defense of peacefully assembled protesters.

 

[ceecee]

These questions suddenly carry high relevance to current events at this moment in American History.

Three Injured in Shooting as Rival Armed Militias Converge on Louisville

"The NFAC was formed this summer by Johnson, who refers to himself as the “Official Grant Master Jay.” He previously assembled about 1,000 militia members to march through Georgia’s Stone Mountain Park in protest of a confederate monument there. For Saturday’s rally, he asked members to arrive armed and dressed in black.

About 200 NFAC members—some from as far away as Oregon—answered the call, according to reporters on the ground, gathering in Baxter Park Saturday morning before a planned march to Jefferson Square Park. Dozens of Three Percenters also showed up in camouflage and carrying guns."

Lemme hear more board member opinions on whether well-regulated militia groups have the constitutional right to fire upon federal/state police and/or military in defense of peacefully assembled protesters.

Leaving aside some of my feelings on NFAC - I would say yes. Adhering to the parameters above - in defense of protesters - yes.

They'll be labeled a problem the same way the III%, the I%, the Boogaloo Boys, the Patriot Front, the Oath Keepers and the various state level private militia groups. In the end the very idea of a black armed militia is way too much for a whole lot of white people to process - leaving the antisemitism aside.

And every single person out there that claims they are a huge supporter of the constitution and all the other bullshit they have been spewing for years - here ya go. Here's your Superbowl moment to actually stand up for all those rights you've strangely been silent on for the last 3.5 years but couldn't talk about loudly or frequently enough the previous 8 years. The militias all have their chance to stand up to the government and for the rights of all Americans right...now. Let's see which ones do and which ones don't.