57Coastie wrote:My point on this when starting up this thread was actually to insure that all our members recognize that our ability to responsibly own and use firearms is under a attack now like we perhaps have not seen before. Our response to that attack may have to be done differently than by regurgitating our own talk to each other and that of the NRA, or, even worse, threatening insurrection, rebellion, seditious conspiracy, or advocating the overthrow of our government.
In the news today was another instance which confirms, to my mind, that the attack is growing, and our response could be fatal if not modified. It must by now be obvious to all that my legal position on the Second Amendment is not "any gun, any time, any place, regardless of other factors present at the time," but I must admit that I am becoming concerned about all the many broad statements coming out of Washington and elsewhere recently.
Jim,
You told me in a PM that you thought I was treading perilously close to sedition in my comments, and you have mentioned it openly here. Now, I don't claim to have your experience as a lawyer or appellate judge, but I've still got decades of experience as a
thinking American with a reasonably high IQ, so I took it upon myself to Google the following search phrase: "last prosecution for sedition in America." I wanted to see for myself if I was treading a line here, because frankly, I never trust a liberal any more when they try to instruct me on the law, their years of practice experience notwithstanding. Liberals are nearly uniformly bullies, and if your suggestion was more than just a warning, and was actually a veiled threat, it would be far from the first time that a liberal has tried to bully me into shutting up. I don't respond to bullying except to lean into it even harder instead of backing away from it. I didn't think it was a threat, but a former member thought it was, and he resigned his membership. So whether you intended it or not, an ideological opponent of yours felt bullied into shutting up to save his own skin, and he quit. Liberalism is never really about protection of free speech, unless it is
their speech.
So here is what I found out about sedition in the United States. My primary source is Wikipedia. They are not unimpeachable, but it is for the most part non-partisan because the open-source nature of it prevents one side or the other from dominating all things......
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedition#United_States
In 1940, the Alien Registration Act, or "Smith Act", was passed, which made it a federal crime to advocate or to teach the desirability of overthrowing the United States Government, or to be a member of any organization which does the same. It was often used against Communist Party organizations. This Act was invoked in three major cases, one of which against the Socialist Worker's Party in Minneapolis in 1941, resulting in 23 convictions, and again in what became known as the Great Sedition Trial of 1944 in which a number of pro-Nazi figures were indicted but released when the prosecution ended in a mistrial. Also, a series of trials of 140 leaders of the Communist Party USA also relied upon the terms of the "Smith Act" -- beginning in 1949—and lasting until 1957. Although the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the convictions of 11 CPUSA leaders in 1951 in Dennis v. United States, that same Court reversed itself in 1957 in the case of Yates v. United States, by ruling that teaching an ideal, no matter how harmful it may seem, does not equal advocating or planning its implementation. Although unused since at least 1961, the "Smith Act" remains a Federal law.
There was, however, a brief attempt to use the sedition laws against protesters of the Vietnam War. On October 17, 1967, two demonstrators, including then Marin County resident Al Wasserman, while engaged in a 'sit in' at the Army Induction Center in Oakland, Ca., were arrested and charged with sedition by deputy US. Marshall Richard St. Germain. U.S. Attorney Cecil Poole changed the charge to trespassing. Poole said, "three guys (according to Mr. Wasserman there were only 2) reaching up and touching the leg of an inductee, and that's conspiracy to commit sedition? That's ridiculous!" The inductees were in the process of physically stepping on the demonstrators as they attempted to enter the building, and the demonstrators were trying to protect themselves from the inductees' feet. Attorney Poole later added, "We'll decide what to prosecute, not marshals."[25]
In 1987 fourteen white supremacists were indicted by a federal grand jury on charges filed by the U.S. Department of Justice against a seditious conspiracy between July 1983 and March 1985. Some alleged conspirators were serving time for overt acts, such as the crimes committed by The Order. Others such as Louis Beam and Richard Butler were charged for their speech seen as spurring on the overt acts by the others. In April 1988, a federal jury in Arkansas acquitted all the accused of charges of seditious conspiracy.[26]
On October 1, 1995, Omar Abdel-Rahman and nine others were convicted of seditious conspiracy.[27]
Laura Berg, a nurse at a U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs hospital in New Mexico was investigated for sedition in September 2005[28] after writing a letter[29][30] to the editor of a local newspaper, accusing several national leaders of criminal negligence. Though their action was later deemed unwarranted by the director of Veteran Affairs, local human resources personnel took it upon themselves to request an FBI investigation. Ms. Berg was represented by the ACLU.[31] Charges were dropped in 2006.[32]
On March 28, 2010, nine members of the Hutaree militia were arrested and charged with crimes including seditious conspiracy.[33]
Now, at no point have I advocated the overthrow of the national government. I have
speculated, as have many others, what something like that would look like, but I have never said anything indicating that I wanted anything other than the Constitutional Republic we are now
supposed to be. IF ANYTHING, I have advocated for a
return to exactly the Constitutional Republic as founded, and away from the progressivist/socialist/communist agenda of the democrat party. If that's sedition, then Karl Marx was a Wall Street banker. What I HAVE said is that I will resist with arms any attempt to confiscate those arms. Now, you may think that is a criminal statement, and maybe it is. I'm not enough of a legal scholar to know. But it isn't seditious.
Yates v. United States (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yates_v._United_States) held that the First Amendment protected radical and reactionary speech, unless it posed a "clear and present danger." Other cases have sought to define "clear and present danger" with regard to speech, with the most current definition being that descended from
Brandenburg v. Ohio, which says: "the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action."
Nothing I have said or done has advocated for "
imminent lawless action"...................until and unless Congress and specifically democrats, jim, that's YOUR party, make me into an instant felon by infringing on my right to own something which I purchased completely legally and in full-faith compliance with existing laws. That is why I will not negotiate or compromise with your party, and I will defend myself if your party presses me to.
In other words, and the democrat party would do very well to take heed,
don't tread on me.
