Anti-War Protesters to Cop: We Don’t Need a Permit We Have the Constitution

By: Joshua Cook
105


On Saturday, thousands of citizens throughout the nation protested military strikes against Syria. A group of activists assembled at the busiest intersection in Spartanburg, S.C. to wave signs and bring awareness to the ongoing push to strike Syria by the Obama administration. A local police officer told them that if someone complained they would have to leave because they did not have a city permit. He also said that activists who continue to protest on the crosswalk would go to jail.

Many of the protestors considered this to be a violation of their 1st Amendment right and challenged the officer by asking him if they committed any crime. They also reminded the officer that they had a right to assemble on public property such as a sidewalk and did not need a permit to do so. Evan Mulch the organizer of the protest told the officer that in the future he would not apply for a permit but would let the police department know when they plan to do the next event.

One protester asked the officer, “what about our right to assembly?” The officer said, “like I said, you have to fill out a form.”

Dr. Bill Bledsoe asked the officer, “What laws am I breaking and are you arresting me?”

“No,” replied the officer. “What I was explaining to him was that you have to have a permit to assemble,” said the officer.


Bledsoe said, “you do not have to have a permit to walk across the street holding a sign.”

One protestor told the officer, “you are pledged to support the Constitution, that’s the #1 law!”

Evan Mulch the one who organized the protest told the officer, “what you are conditioning us to do is to ask you for approval to be in a public place – we don’t need your approval.”

 

The following two tabs change content below.

Joshua Cook

Joshua Cook is the acting Chairman for the Republican Liberty Caucus of South Carolina. Joshua Cook's articles have also been cited on sites such as DrudgeReport, InfoWars, Reason.com, WND.com, Breitbart.com, DailyCaller and FreedomOutPost.com. If you have any tips please email me at [email protected] Like me on FB and follow me on Twitter.

  • Robert LeJeune

    It is about time that we exert our rights and tell these tyrannical Police officers we do not need their permission to express our opinions to our fellow Americans.

    • Awakentv Sedona

      Do Americans really want to live free?

      I really don’t think many Americans do… or even care.

      But what about our children, and their children?

      I am “inspired” from the actions, or lack of actions, of both political parties and how they representing We the People…, lies, IRS, TSA, DOD, DHS, Executive branches for the past ten years…. phony scandals, YouTube videos causing terrorist attacks, mainstream media official a “regime state TV”… no Truth about Syria …

      “Idle No More”

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rz5QnO2KMLQ

    • BambiB

      Tyrannical police officers, sure. This guy didn’t strike me as “tyrannical” so much as “misinformed”. We ought to make allowances for honest mistakes.

  • SissyCool

    Proud of you guys! Thanks for standing up for our rights!

  • Sunset Cliff

    I know Evan- great job!

  • Joshua Allen Donini

    Seriously!?!? This country is going to crap fast.

  • Heartland Patriot

    How wonderful of the liberal-progressive mass media propaganda machine to not highlight that there were anti-war protests…I guess those were only okay when a Republican was in office. And whatever I may feel about any given group of anti-war protestors, they certainly do NOT need any permit to speak their mind in public, so long as they don’t interfere with others.

  • Judd

    I just hope people are polite. We don’t need vigilante types out there making a bad name for constitutional rights awareness

    • Bill Bledsoe

      I’m the one that did most of the confrontation.

      I’m sorry but it makes me angry when a poorly trained Public Servant starts threatening to arrest protesters for non-existent laws. He had no legal grounds for any of his threats of arrest.

      It’s time for Americans to get angry when someone threatens to falsely arrest them, not cower and hide.

      • Kelly McRae

        Down South (as you know) we respect a man with integrity. We may deplore unjustified aggression, but your integrity sir, is admirable. And you make some excellent points. Keeping it real, and peaceful. On behalf of liberty, thanks!

      • jpe

        if they the protesters were blocking the street or if there was a permit requirement, then yes, they were breaking the law. (permit requirements are generally constitutional as time, place, and manner restrictions. educate yourself and look it up)

        • maximus2112

          You, sir, are part of the problem. If you accept the fallacy of time, place, and manner restrictions upon a Constitutional right, then why the hell even have a Constitution. I do not give a damn what some lawyer, pig in a black robe, or some former judicial precedent says about time, place, and manner restrictions–they are wrong and will be overturned, either in a peaceful manner like the protesters in the above video or by force and violence. Those are the only choices.

  • Kevin Merck

    Nice to see that there are still a few people out there with a brain and a pulse.
    It’s okay to get angry with people who want to violate your rights. We have been listening to feminist morons who think we need “anger management” if we express a perfectly normal emotion when our rights are being violate.
    BTW, these are the same feminist pigs who spewed virulent hate speech in every direction when they perceived that their rights were being violated.

    • BambiB

      Truth is, women are destroying (have destroyed) this Country. Take a look at the gender gap in politics… almost 20%. And what do women vote for? To spend all of tomorrow’s money today. Clearly, that’s not ALL women – but when the majority of the majority sets out to spend 50 years worth of budget in 10 years, I’m afraid all we can do is educate the perpetrators (doesn’t seem to be working – they want what they want when they want it and it doesn’t matter if we can afford it), remove the voting franchise (won’t happen until after the collapse), ride the disaster into the ground (which is what’s happening – sooner than you think!) or kill them :-O

      Tough choices.

      • Faithkills

        “or kill them” hurr hurr hurr

        There is a reason disenfranchised people use political power to gain temporal power. I’m not saying it’s moral, but it’s natural. Minorities cling to the sword, because they think the handshake has worked agin them. Of course the sword works against them far more, convincing the cattle that the ranchers sole use of weapons is just is a foul and evil trick.

        Women and any other minority are prone to condone rape (ie democracy) because they have BEEN raped. The solution isn’t explaining rape or kinder and gentler rape. It’s to end rape.

        The solution isn’t to end female suffrage, it’s to end suffrage.

        • 7LibertyForAll

          You’re wanting to end the right to vote? Seriously?

          • Faithkills

            Yes. Why do you think the act of voting makes things just? Voting is just violence from an anonymous cowardly distance.

            You think we’d have war on drugs or war to spread democracy or war on terror if people had to do it or pay for it themselves?

            Though technically it’s not voting that is the problem, it’s that there is anything to vote ON.

            Voting should involve who’s hot or your favorite color or who should play Tyion Lannister. It shouldn’t involve stealing(tax), killing(war), and kidnapping(prison).

      • 7LibertyForAll

        Women are destroying nothing. instead of focusing on the effects of the filth who persist in dominating everyone and everything, go after the federal reserve, the filth in congress, the filth at all levels of our corrupt government. The women who parrot such idiocy are merely dupes being used to divide and destroy this country. Go after the real culprits.

  • Ramona Weston

    Police Officers are there to REPRESENT the law, they are not suppose to intimidate us people when we are gathered to protest , no one was asking for money, I think the groups that stand out on the curb begging for donations are to have a permit for that. Not protesters. To inform the public.

  • http://Realityofliferants.com/ Toni franklin

    Awesome job guys. Wish I lived In and area that was more active in fighting for our rights. I would be doing the same if I had others to stand with me. more like witnesses/camera’s because I am darn sure I would get harassed.

    • Anthony_Agorist

      Don’t be afraid. You are the leader you are searching for. Stand up, and others will take notice and follow.. Those followers will become leaders and the seeds of liberty will keep growing. If we wait around for a savior we will be waiting a very long time. Be the savior.

      • Bill Bledsoe

        So true. It took Evan Mulch about five minutes to set up the facebook event and send his friends an invite. Only about 8 friends showed up, but we put a smile on the faces of thousands.

        The signs were made from cardboard boxes and paint on old sheets. The Obama in chains and prison garb is simply a cheap ebay halloween costume. The holder for the sheet is made from 1 1/4 inch pvc pipe from Lowes.

        The training of the public servant was made possible by half a dozen patriots knowing our local laws better than he did.

        Anyone could create an event like this in minutes with facebook events and patriotic friends.

        The one thing Evan would have done differently was to advise our Spartanburg Police ahead of time. In the end that’s all the public servant asked of us. He backed off on the threats of arrest.

        • 7LibertyForAll

          It’s STILL harassment.

  • Steve

    You have the right to assemble as long as no one complains.

    • Madison Blackstone

      One person’s inconvenience (complaint) does not negate your rights. A complaint results in police investigating the situation but if they only find lawful activity, the activity continues.

    • SlimJim

      Of course you are being facetious. I hope… for God’s sake.

  • Kelly McRae

    Sounds like a successful protest, wish I had been there! AND it appears like the officer did his job… No one was arrested; for assembly, for speech, for recording him, for their dog barking. No ignorant sound bites. He just maintained the peace in that space? I’d surmise our local boys made me proud. PEACE.

    • Bill Bledsoe

      Our job is to train our police officers. They don’t know the laws they are paid to enforce. We must teach them the laws.
      I honestly felt sorry for the poor Public Servant.
      He didn’t know what to do when confronted with half a dozen patriots who were all within the law and demanding that he honor the law.

      • joe shmoe

        Part of the reason they don’t know the law is that there are way too many laws. The constitution is short and sweet. The way laws should be. The idea of thousands of pages of law is unamerican.

        • BambiB

          I’ve often said, “If I were king…” One of the first laws I’d pass is that the entire body of the law must be reduced by 3% per year for the next 100 years. So whatever the word count of laws, codes, ordinances, case precedent, etc. existed at the beginning of a year, by the end of the year, that would have to be reduced by 3%. 100 years would reduce legal complexity by about 95%.

      • Kelly McRae

        Then all the MORE successful! Are y’all repeating next week?

    • 7LibertyForAll

      What job was it that that officer did so well? You’re not paying attention…..

  • Rob Dies

    It is nice to see one cop with some critical thinking skills. He didn’t freak out or beat anyone or anything. Of course, it would’ve been nicer if he’d realized his orders conflicted with the constitution in the first place and simply directed traffic.

    • Tannim

      He was outnumbered and he knew if he started something he was toast. Cops only beat on people when they have a numerical or armor advantage. He had neither.

    • 7LibertyForAll

      The cop had critical thinking skills? Seriously? This boob is merely a mouthpiece for the filth who employed him and they are not a legitimate part of this country. Only the county sheriff and his people are.

  • ComparedToWhat?

    Why praise the officer for being open to being educated by the protesters? Imagine performing a job and being so ignorant that you have to be taught by your customer? They should have completely ignored him and gone about their business.

    • sonicbphuct

      lol – it’s like telling a bartender how to make a Gin & Tonic.

      • BambiB

        So long as he learns how to make the gin and tonic properly, and doesn’t need to be retrained every time he makes a drink, what’s the problem? If only police were that easy to train!

        • sonicbphuct

          Ahhhh, & therein lies the rub; they are exceptionally easily trained, but once trained, they are like old dogs that won’t learn new tricks. Like the Gin & Tonic, the recipe for their job is in their name, unfortunately, they’ve been trained otherwise. They don’t know how to enforce laws, they only know how to enforce their master’s desires. Abstraction has removed us from their understanding of Master.

    • glockstr

      Actually every business should be willing to learn from the customer otherwise it dies. Why should government be any different.

      • Tannim

        Because government doesn’t serve the customers–it serfs them! Therefore they simply don’t care.

  • SlimJim

    Agree. Unfortunately, you are already asking the government’s permission to exercise your 2nd Amendment rights. Everyone needs to bone up on 18 U.S.C. 242 and 241. (IANAL) http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/242

    Believe me, the cops know about this federal civil rights law. It opens them up personally to criminal and civil action – they do NOT receive qualified immunity and they can lose a great deal. Know your rights and exercise them!

    http://www.firerescue1.com/firefighter-safety/articles/350877-Fire-captain-arrested-for-apparatus-placement-awarded-17-500-in-Mo/

    • 7LibertyForAll

      Good post; thanks for the links

    • Tannim

      When I go to political events in public, I carry a copy or six of that with me and ask them, when they confront me, if they want to go to prison, then give them the card, They tend to back off in a hurry.

  • Todd Little

    he should of asked the police officer, who’s side is he on?

  • Awakentv Sedona

    My question to everyone is….

    Do Americans really want to live free?

    I really don’t think many Americans do… or even care. Our do we just complain?,,, or can we stand for something?

    But what about our children, and their children?

    I am “inspired” from the actions, or lack of actions, of both political parties and how they representing We the People…, lies, IRS, TSA, DOD, DHS, Executive branches for the past ten years…. phony scandals, YouTube videos causing terrorist attacks, mainstream media official a “regime state TV”… no Truth about Syria …

    “Idle No More”

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rz5QnO2KMLQ

  • glockstr

    Great job defending your rights. Please stop referring to the gun on his hip as threatening. Not only does it sound silly but your walking into a logic trap. If a gun openly carried on his hip is threatening then so is one on your hip openly carried.

    • InLiberty

      glockstr I totally agree. Great comment.

    • sonicbphuct

      I’m kind of on board with your argument. Certainly in thought exercises, it is a logic trap. However, given the context – one has a gun, one does not (at least, I didn’t see it) – there is certainly a power imbalance. Further, given the history of Police in America, an everyday, average citizen with a gun on their hip is significantly less likely to shoot you, or even to demand you do certain things, under the implied threat that you will be shot. And, if they do, there is a reasonable likelyhood that they will be held to account for it in some way.

      So, given these mitigating circumstances, it is only a logic trap if one assumes the police (and their sordid history) are functionally equal to a private citizen open-carrying a gun. Unfortunately, this reductionist perspective loses sight of high-impact variables that change the equation. Police != Private Citizen, therefore, Police + Gun != Private Citizen + Gun. The gun itself is not threatening, it is the person on who’s hip it resides that is threatening.

    • 7LibertyForAll

      The big difference with the cop’s gun on his hip is that historically, they’ve been using them to criminally threaten, maim, and kill the people and their pets. Even with a gun on his hip, any person who carries is way out of the balance of power with any thug in blue. The thugs have other thugs who will immediately pig-pile on anyone they want to, beat them, shoot them and walk away with no accountability whatsoever.

  • zeestan

    their not police anymore, their brainwashed to thinking their some sort of military when their really just bullies and tax-collectors.(mooches) sorta like Israel and our polititions. No guts just guns and scary uniforms very bad combo when they kick your door in and kill your dog for smoking pot in your own home. how do you think these animals and cowards are gonna act when their told to haul you off to a fema camp

    • Bob

      If you think that all the police are no guts you are just a moron. Try riding along with a big city police officer.

      • BambiB

        Their guts are in numbers. Take away their radio and watch them run. Or just load up videos of the Rodney King riots and actually SEE cops putting their cars in rapid reverse.

  • BambiB

    The officer seemed like a polite, well-intended, mistaken individual.
    I think the claims of the police “threatening” are overblown.
    The correct answer to this is, “Officer, we are not trying to break the law. If you will please show us the applicable law, we will be happy to read it and either obey it or challenge it in court. But until you can show us that you are acting under legal authority, we can only view your comments as personal opinion – which you are free to have – but which do not have the force of law.”

    • Tannim

      They asked him multiple times to cite the law and he couldn’t.

    • sonicbphuct

      He did threaten whomever was standing on the island that they would be arrested for doing so. However, he could not come up with an ordinance that granted him the authority to do so. Eventually he backed down entirely, which was nice. Though, I don’t think his motivation for backing down was because he was nice, but rather, he realized he was out of his league arguing law.

      • Lazy Jack

        Not really. Google it. He could have taken them all to jail but chose not to and will address the issue with them while not in the middle of their “speech” I am sure.

  • LetsTryLibertyAgain

    I certainly agree in theory. Our first amendment, if followed, would prevent the federal government from infringing on the right of citizens to freely assemble, particularly to petition their government for a redress of grievances. While that sets a good example for states and local governments, the first amendment does not prevent state governments or local governments from requiring a permit to assemble (depending on how you interpret section 1 of the 14th amendment. Laws requiring permits are bad laws, but they need to be addressed at the state and local level. When push came (almost) to shove, it did sound like Spartanburg does not have a bad law requiring citizens to get permission from government to protest government.

    Good job on sticking up for your rights and standing your ground.

    • ax123man

      “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
      prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively,
      or to the people”

      Depends on how you interpret “..or to the people”. My feeling is, when stupid is this obvious, you don’t need a lawyer or a judge (who will always side with system).

    • Tannim

      “the first amendment does not prevent state governments or local governments from requiring a permit to assemble”

      yes, it does. Individual rights trump powers of governments at all levels. See Jefferson.

      • LetsTryLibertyAgain

        The first amendment is the law which prevents the federal government, assuming our society abides by that law. The individual right itself prevents all governments. The first amendment is not the right. The right predates our Constitution. The right has existed at least as long as there were humans… regardless of whether the right was recognized or practiced. Our Bill of Rights acknowledges some of the inalienable rights that are the birthrights of all humans.

        It may seem that I’m splitting hairs, but the distinction is important. We need to be precise when we speak, lest we be the flip side of the police who say that something is illegal and then not being able to cite a law, so their version of illegal is then revealed to be their opinion or their perspective or how they think things should be.

        We need to distinguish between our rights, and our laws which exist to help us to protect our rights.

        Similarly, I would have the right to keep and bear arms to defend myself, my friends, my family and my community… whether the second amendment (which I love!) existed or not.

        • Tannim

          Correct, but the government doesn’t see it that way, and therein lies the real problem.

      • Lazy Jack

        “”Time restrictions regulate when individuals may express themselves. At certain times of the day, the government may curtail or prohibit speech to address legitimate societal concerns, such as traffic congestion and crowd control. For example, political protesters may seek to demonstrate in densely populated cities to draw maximum attention to their cause. The First Amendment permits protesters to take such action, but not whenever they choose. The Supreme Court has held on more than one occasion that no one may “insist upon a street meeting in the middle of Times Square at the rush hour as a form of freedom of speech” (Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 536, 85 S. Ct. 453, 13 L. Ed. 2d 471 [1965]). In most instances a commuter’s interest in getting to and from work outweighs an individual’s right to tie up traffic through political expression.””http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Time,+Place,+and+Manner+Restrictions

        • Tannim

          So you’re making excuses by citing a case that SCOTUS clearly got wrong, almost two hundred years after the principle was laid out rather clearly, as they tend to do most of the time?

          Sorry, that doesn’t fly, nor does it refute my original point. Jefferson had it figured out and made it explicit in the D of I: rights trump powers, because the powers of government derive from the rights of the people, and can be revoked in the same way.

          • jbanana

            You’re so right. SCROTUS is a sick joke. A bunch of senile old, diaper wearing, psychopaths. In the private sector once a certain level of dementia is reached, it’s “layoff” time. But these insane bunch of loonies get to keep guessing at what the law is, as long as they can stay propped up in their chair.

  • DSCEO

    American’s don’t want freedom, they want a pseudo police state security. If they really wanted freedom, you’d have 350 million people storming DC with pitchforks and torches.

    • Tannim

      We don’t have 350 million…

      • Alias

        330 million at last count and some people continue to have unprotected sex.

        • Tannim

          What’s 20 million or so? Only the population of Chicago metro…

  • ax123man

    In theory both these guys were doing the same thing and asking for the same individual rights to be upheld. However, there’s no reason to approach this the way the guy in the orange jumpsuit did. I think he could learn something from the other gentleman. Also, I seriously doubt Barney Fife was much of a threat with the gun.

    • cooperbry

      Orange jumpsuit guy was 100% correct with his tone. We need to stand up for our rights, even if it means getting loud with an uninformed police officer.

      • ax123man

        When someone uses the phrase “even if it means XYZ”, as you just did, what that normally means is you try to avoid XYZ but don’t hesitate to do XYZ if necessary. So it looks to me like you are supporting my argument. That wasn’t Orange Jumpsuits approach. He wanted to pick a fight with Barney Fife, who clearly was trying to avoid it. What jumpsuit fails to understand is that the majority of the police force is on our side, if you behave in a civil manor. This is not US against the police. It’s liberty against tyranny. If you can’t see the difference, you are likely to have trouble in these situations.

        • billy woods

          BS! Grow up and get your nose out of authorities ass. Just because jump suite guy didn’t hold decorum to your preferred level of emotion. Does not mean he is wrong. Sounds like you don’t like confrontation. So be it. The authorities have been trained to put themselves into every aspect of societies lives, right or wrong, and I believe we will see more and more jump suite guys going forward. When people lose everything and have nothing else to lose they lose it. Welcome to SLAVELANDIA.

          • ax123man

            You are telling me to grow up. That’s funny.

          • Mark C.

            I believe the cop was incorrect about having to have a permit overriding the Constitution but he was calm, civil, and did not escalate the situation like so many cops do. While the guy in the orange jumpsuit was right, he was also being quite provocative which in this case was un called for. A bad cop would have arrested him.

  • jbanana

    FAKE, Do you expect us to believe only one cop, no riot gear, no tear gas, no military troop carriers, no assault weapons, and nobody beaten. FAKE, phony, phooey. Or, what country was this in? It is every American’s DUTY to disobey illegal laws.

    • 7LibertyForAll

      You have a point there. The thugs in blue travel in packs and will assault people for no reason at all.

  • zeestan

    I have fool, I also know that cops busting through your door has gone from 3000 in 82 to 80,000 now, i also know how police arrested a 5 year old for selling lemonade, i also know when you really need one they say (It’s a civil matter or we’ll make a report, or giving me 116 dollar ticket for seatbelt while schoolbuses dont have the first one. See BOB your the type who would let tsa agents feel your 6 year old up because your a typical, un-American troll

  • Doctor Sparkles

    I applaud this great cause and these encouraging videos. However…

    The Constitution is the federal government rule book, right? Its 1st Amendment reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

    SC Constitution (SC State government rule book) makes a similar statement in its Declaration of Rights.

    So, neither the US Congress nor the SC General Assembly is (lawfully) permitted to enact such laws, but how does the US Constitution and/or the SC Declaration of Rights prevent local governments from doing so?

    How does a police officer upholding local ordinances regarding assembly in public places (assuming they even exist), violate his oath to uphold state and federal constitutions?

    Don’t get me wrong… Laws infringing upon natural rights are unjust laws, no matter where they originate. It is arguable that unjust laws need to be disregarded by We the People and thereby nullified, but that is a different argument than the constitutional arguments being outlined here, is it not?

    • Tannim

      “how does the US Constitution and/or the SC Declaration of Rights prevent local governments from doing so?”

      Because individual rights trump powers of government, and because no public official under color of law may deny anyone their constitutional rights under 18 USC 242.

    • Mike Lindquist

      The answer is that the constitution is the supreme law of the land, not any local ordinance. No city government within the United States may take away your right to assemble, or practice your religion, for example. They may try, but it cannot, and should not be upheld as a valid law.

      • Doctor Sparkles

        I like the spirit of your point, but does the 1st Amendment state that the right of people to peaceably assemble shall not be infringed? No, it reads “Congress shall make no laws…abridging… the right of the people peaceably to assemble…” This only applies to the federal government congress, and in no way directly prevents state or local governments from infringing on the right to peaceably assemble.

        • Anthony

          What you fail to realize, I that the fact it is IN the constitution, declares those rights as ones that precede government, and therefore, no government can remove or grant those rights.

        • aggieben

          The bill of rights (and the rest of the constitution) have been incorporated against the states for some time (really since the Amendment XIV), and local governments are just extensions of the state. A city is most definitely under the same constraint as congress when it comes to the first amendment.

  • dan

    if you need a ‘permit’ or have to ask ‘permission’ …you are NOT free….and where in or on ‘public’ holdings does it require the owner’ taxpayer’ to get anything to be allowed there…..

  • Adalberto Castillo

    You see you need to know the law , their need no permit in public place

    • PatriotOne

      Bowers v DeVito – The constitution is a charter of negative liberties, it tells the states to leave the people alone, it does not require the states or the federal government to provide services, even so elementary a service as maintaining law and order. (no duty to protect Rule 12b6)

  • CreepyAssCracker

    Bill Of Rights:
    Amendment 1

    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; OR THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE PEACEABLY TO ASSEMBLE, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

  • badman400

    Good job folks!. The cop is WRONG. Why would he put himself on the opposite side of the very ones he is sworn to protect?

    • wiley

      Because cops aren’t here to protect your rights anymore. They are nothing more than revenue collecting thugs for the politicians and lawmakers.

    • Lazy Jack

      You WANT him to be wrong, but he isn’t. This is the same as the 2nd Amendment allowing guns, but them being “illegal” at public places and venues.

  • Cheryl Newcomb

    This just goes to show that law enforcement knows nothing about the Constitution, which they have sworn to uphold. They do as their overlords tell them. Please everyone, get educated on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. If we don’t start exercising those rights, we will lose them!!

    • Lazy Jack

      Yes please do!! That includes you also Cheryl. While I think the cops are way to far in to our business, I have experience with this and this COP was not wrong. Google or WIKI for quick answers.

  • Jeremy Fulsom

    Dont talk to cops. Trying to reason with a police officer is a lost cause. Let them arrest you and tell it to the judge, but attempting to reason with LEO is without a doubt an exercise in futility.

    • BambiB

      Depends.

      I think the smarter you are, the more chance there is that the cop will back down. It’s the people who demonstrate that they’re NOT as smart as the cops (usually a low bar) that get creamed the worst.

      • DavidPatrick

        Be aware that BambiB is a fake name by a male asshole who supports the “right” of men to demand phone numbers from women at gunpoint.

  • AngryDudeson

    You should be able to take legal action on an officer that tries to intimidate you out of thinking you have constitutional rights. That kind of action will have a huge impact on people psychologically.

    • Lazy Jack

      Yea!! Hell with it, lets just interpret the Constitution ourselves! Get rid of the police and we will take care of it ourselves.

      • Pat Poe

        I think you should read the constitution and the bill of rights. Then look at the supreme court rulings pertaining to the interpretations. Current interpretation by the supreme court says you are incorrect.

        • 7LibertyForAll

          If we depend on the supreme court for “permission” to act as the sovereign beings that we are, we can kiss it all goodbye. We don’t need no stinking, corrupt, criminal supreme court to rubber stamp whatever our tyrannical government cooks up.

  • Pacificus
  • ww
  • zeestan

    Does it really matter what the constitution says when the American people care more about honey boo-boo or those duck idiots. Or when John Mcshame is playing video poker while the fate of our young people and treasure is in such danger. Our country and the bill of rights/constitution are a mongoleon goat Fu&* and it’s our fault. So the next time you feel like crying think about what your DOING. I have 7 petitions up on the Gov. web site. A podcast show i pay for to get the word out, I did my military time while the deserter bush, Romney and Cheney hid, and I’m shipping out tomorrow on a research vessel doing good work for the public. Not bragging just making a point.

  • ddearborn

    Hmmm

    the 1st Amendment in its entirety:

    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” I am always curious as to way not 1 article in a hundred bothers to include this one simple paragraph when discussing these issues.
    I looked long and hard but could not find a single word about “permits” or “permission” or the local “colonel” of the police force in this amendment.
    People if you have to ask for and get permission it is not a right it is a “privilege”.
    And since the first Amendment clearly and unambiguously describes our RIGHT to freedom of: Religion, free speech, free press, free assembly and the right to petition the government, THE ONLY “RIGHT” THE GOVERNMENT HAS WITH REGARD TO THOSE FREEDOMS IS TO MAKE SURE THEY ARE PROTECTED! That’s all people. And when you get right down to it, that is one of the primary jobs of government. Obviously the government has no mandate, duty or right to in any way infringe on those rights. And when they do it is our job as citizens to gently remind them of the error of their ways. And if that doesn’t work the founding fathers included the 4th amendment.