TallPine
Member
But if you were to mention, for instance, the "Feinstein-Schumer Gun Safety Act" you would be in violation.
Is the USSC trying to foment revolution?
- Thread starter jimpeel
- Start date
- Status
ctdonath
Member
1. There are a variety of loopholes in this prohibition. Not stating the obvious (i.e.: everyone knows who you're referring to, even if not by name), officially becoming a media outlet (as the NRA is trying to buy a TV station), etc. The more complex the laws, the more easily those with money can get around them ("Congress shall pass no law" was very simple and clear, and thus had to be eliminated).
2. To comply (with or without loopholes), you'll ultimately have to read the whole 700 page law and 300 page ruling yourself. Congress/POTUS/SCOTUS thought one sentence in the Constitution wasn't clear enough.
3. Don't get caught up in red herrings of loopholes and "if you just comply...". The crown jewel of the Constitution - freedom of political speech - has just been stolen by those selected to protect it. Don't say "oh well, if we just put a pretty piece of glass in the empty setting everything will look the same" when the biggest political diamond on Earth has been swiped.
2. To comply (with or without loopholes), you'll ultimately have to read the whole 700 page law and 300 page ruling yourself. Congress/POTUS/SCOTUS thought one sentence in the Constitution wasn't clear enough.
3. Don't get caught up in red herrings of loopholes and "if you just comply...". The crown jewel of the Constitution - freedom of political speech - has just been stolen by those selected to protect it. Don't say "oh well, if we just put a pretty piece of glass in the empty setting everything will look the same" when the biggest political diamond on Earth has been swiped.
jimpeel
Member
For those who claim that money is not speech, you need to read Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U. S. 1
Justin Moore
Member
I thought there was/is still no limitations on ads done by individuals? I thought these new Hitlerian restrictions only applied to organization like the ACLU, NRA, NOW, or whatever that are 'incorporated'. In other words, if you are someone like Soros, you can spend as much of your personal cash as you want to. Or Bill Gates or John Corzine...
ctdonath
Member
You going to read 1000 pages of legalise to see if you can personally run an ad?
Justin Moore
Member
ct,
good point I spose :banghead:
good point I spose :banghead:
Bob Locke
Member
If the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 9th and 10th Amendments are defunct, then what's left?
The government is busy legislating, ruling, and enforcing away our fundamental rights.
So much for the "it can't happen here" train of thought.
The government is busy legislating, ruling, and enforcing away our fundamental rights.
So much for the "it can't happen here" train of thought.
jimpeel
Member
The Third. You got a spare bedroom for that soldier they will be assigning to billet in your home?
Moparmike
Member
Jim, I dont recall Congress legislating away the 3rd. Yet.
jimpeel
Member
Mopar
The Third Amendment is the only Amendment that is not under active attack. I guess they had to leave one of them intact and, since it was Wednesday, the Third Amendment won the draw.
The Third Amendment is the only Amendment that is not under active attack. I guess they had to leave one of them intact and, since it was Wednesday, the Third Amendment won the draw.
NorthernExtreme
Member
If I / anybody can't buy airtime for any reason at any time because Congress and the USSC say I can't, that sounds an awful lot like the final death thralls of the 1st Amendment to me.
The United States of Alaska; has a nice ring to it if you ask me!
(Amen!)
The United States of Alaska; has a nice ring to it if you ask me!
(Amen!)Bob Locke
Member
Jim, you are a treasure! I've had a long evening of it over on Free Republic on this topic, and I click back over here before turning in and you give me a good ol' belly laugh. Thanks, brother!
Langenator
Member
The way I understood the law, from the debates/commentary when the law was passed, is that nobody, no person, group, or organization, can buy advertising that names candidates within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election.
Candidates can run ads naming themselves and the opposition, providing they pay for the ads with federally regulated "hard money" donations (limited to $2000 per person per election cycle, IIRC. PACs have a separate limit, but are still limited.
The fact that John Q. Public can't buy advertising with his own personal money is what is so sickening about this law and this ruling.
Candidates can run ads naming themselves and the opposition, providing they pay for the ads with federally regulated "hard money" donations (limited to $2000 per person per election cycle, IIRC. PACs have a separate limit, but are still limited.
The fact that John Q. Public can't buy advertising with his own personal money is what is so sickening about this law and this ruling.
ctdonath
Member
Um...guys...the 3rd Amendment is under attack, just not in a way the Founding Fathers could have conceived.
Half the point of the 3rd is making people house/clothe/feed soldiers. Obviously that ain't happening for some time (but ya might want to keep the guest room nice and tidy).
T'other half the point of the 3rd is having a gov't agent monitoring everything happening in the home. This overlaps issues of the 1st, 2nd, 4th and 5th amendments. Having an unfriendly gov't agent in one's home knida chills one's exercise of rights (especially if doing so is in opposition to tyrrany).
This second part of the 3rd Amendment is being infringed thru data mining, as a huge amount of what you do - including at home - is generating a semi-public data trail whereby much of what you do can be monitored if the gov't is so inclined. Credit card purchases, phone calls, computer files, internet use, automated toll road passes, firearm background checks, mail orders, checks, pay-at-the-pump, electricity use, video rentals, and a host of other modern daily activities can be remotely accessed and used to create a model of what is happening in your home. It's not quite up there with actually quartering a soldier who watches your every move, but the info does give a good idea thereof.
The 3rd Amendment is the "Big Brother is watching" protection. The Founding Fathers could not have imagined how Big Brother need not actually be standing next to you to know what you are doing.
Half the point of the 3rd is making people house/clothe/feed soldiers. Obviously that ain't happening for some time (but ya might want to keep the guest room nice and tidy).
T'other half the point of the 3rd is having a gov't agent monitoring everything happening in the home. This overlaps issues of the 1st, 2nd, 4th and 5th amendments. Having an unfriendly gov't agent in one's home knida chills one's exercise of rights (especially if doing so is in opposition to tyrrany).
This second part of the 3rd Amendment is being infringed thru data mining, as a huge amount of what you do - including at home - is generating a semi-public data trail whereby much of what you do can be monitored if the gov't is so inclined. Credit card purchases, phone calls, computer files, internet use, automated toll road passes, firearm background checks, mail orders, checks, pay-at-the-pump, electricity use, video rentals, and a host of other modern daily activities can be remotely accessed and used to create a model of what is happening in your home. It's not quite up there with actually quartering a soldier who watches your every move, but the info does give a good idea thereof.
The 3rd Amendment is the "Big Brother is watching" protection. The Founding Fathers could not have imagined how Big Brother need not actually be standing next to you to know what you are doing.
Master Blaster
Member
So can I print up flier that say Dean is a liar and a Hypocrit and heres why you should not vote for him. and then go put them into all the mailboxes in my neighborhood the day before the election?
In the dark of night while carrying my tac light mounted Glock IWB?????
Can I knock on each door and personally explain to all my neighbors why they should vote for Bush??????
In the dark of night while carrying my tac light mounted Glock IWB?????
Can I knock on each door and personally explain to all my neighbors why they should vote for Bush??????
geekWithA.45
Moderator Emeritus
Master Blaster:
Yes, you can do all that (assuming the Glock bit is legal in your case, although showing up conspicuously armed on your neighbors doorstep and dispensing voting advice might be viewed as voter intimidation...but I didn't think that was your intention)
The BRCA's scope of abridgement of speech applies to broadcast media, and equivalents like cable/sat tv.
For better or worse, these are the media that reach the most people, and are arguably the most effective way to get a message out far and wide in a hurry.
Print, The Net, etc are exempted.
You can stand on a soap box anywhere you want, and speak to anyone within the sound of your voice, but that is cold comfort.
And yes, the third is under attack, as per previous posters.
Yes, you can do all that (assuming the Glock bit is legal in your case, although showing up conspicuously armed on your neighbors doorstep and dispensing voting advice might be viewed as voter intimidation...but I didn't think that was your intention)
The BRCA's scope of abridgement of speech applies to broadcast media, and equivalents like cable/sat tv.
For better or worse, these are the media that reach the most people, and are arguably the most effective way to get a message out far and wide in a hurry.
Print, The Net, etc are exempted.
You can stand on a soap box anywhere you want, and speak to anyone within the sound of your voice, but that is cold comfort.
And yes, the third is under attack, as per previous posters.
jimpeel
Member
No. Federal law prohibits the placement of anything that is not official mail, delivered by an official of the Post Office, from being placed in any mailbox.
All mailboxes remain the property of the USPS regardless of who buys or places them or their location upon any property.
Yes, as long as the property is not posted against such activity which would be, pursuant to the law, soliciting.
ctdonath
Member
You'll just have to read 700 pages of law to find out! plus any existing relevant laws you're not aware of (like: putting anything in others' mailboxes is prohibited).
Remember, ignorance of the law is no excuse. When is the last time you read the laws - all of them?
Sam Adams
Member
jim peel
So those who whack P.O. boxes with baseball bats while in a car after having imbibed a bit too much alcohol have committed a federal crime? And is the P.O. box federal property if I fill it with dirt and put it in the back yard to use as a flower pot?
That law is among the biggest crocks of shiite on the books, and that is saying something.
So those who whack P.O. boxes with baseball bats while in a car after having imbibed a bit too much alcohol have committed a federal crime? And is the P.O. box federal property if I fill it with dirt and put it in the back yard to use as a flower pot?
That law is among the biggest crocks of shiite on the books, and that is saying something.
jimpeel
Member
Sam Adams
I don't write those crappy laws, I just repeat them.
Dumb laws are dumb laws and destruction of a mailbox is apparently destruction of postal service property although I have yet to hear of anyone being prosecuted for destroying one.
I don't write those crappy laws, I just repeat them.
Dumb laws are dumb laws and destruction of a mailbox is apparently destruction of postal service property although I have yet to hear of anyone being prosecuted for destroying one.
Ed N.
Member
I had a mailbox stolen a few years ago, and the cops actually recovered it from the backseat of a 16-year-old kid's car when they pulled him over for a traffic violation at about 3 a.m. He was charged with petty theft because there had been no mail in the box when he took it. According to the cops, had there been a letter in it when he took it, he would have committed a federal offense.
The difference seems to be whether or not the mail is actually tampered with.
The difference seems to be whether or not the mail is actually tampered with.
jimpeel
Member
Back on topic, what would happen if I were to start airing ads to have myself elected as a "write-in" candidate? I have not paid the fee to become an official candidate. I have not entered the race officially nor do I have my name on the ballot.
Do these new laws cover me, also; or is this a "loophole"? Would groups in opposition to my election be able to air ads saying that the public should not write me in -- naming me specifically -- within 30 days of the election?
Do these new laws cover me, also; or is this a "loophole"? Would groups in opposition to my election be able to air ads saying that the public should not write me in -- naming me specifically -- within 30 days of the election?
Sergeant Bob
Member
Sam Adams
The judge decided to make an "example" of him. Problem is, who was he making an example to? It was a very low profile case, and the only ones who will ever remember it are his family, friends, and him, forever.
Indeed they have. I do know someone who was convicted of just such a thing and now has a felony record for it. He's my nieces husband, and he really is a good father to his kids (and a good friend to me), but won't get near my guns. He's extremely cautious about doing anything that might send him back to jail.
The judge decided to make an "example" of him. Problem is, who was he making an example to? It was a very low profile case, and the only ones who will ever remember it are his family, friends, and him, forever.
grampster
Member
Here it is in a nutshell: Congress passed a law, the President signed it, and SCOTUS affirmed it. What is the point of the law? Reduce it to its lowest common denominator: Money corrupts men who would be elected leaders. So pass a law about prohibiting money that actually stops free speech. Don't address the corrupt men who inhabit the halls of government, attack the object, money. Holy Crap, how stupid. The Constitution prohibits the abridgement of free speech the same as it prohibits the infringement of keeping and bearing arms.
I disagree with the McCain-Feingold law and so should everyone on this forum. Reason: We don't believe firearms kill people. We believe people kill people and sometimes they use firearms.
Therefore the money does not corrupt the men. The men are already corrupt or are willing to be corrupted. So, according to this law, if you shut off the money (take away the guns) there will be no more corruption (crime). Yeah, Right!!
If you believe taking firearms away from honest people will stop crime and killing, the you should believe that taking money out of the political venue (and stoping the ability to publicy, as a group, rebut BS) will stop corruption in politics.
This law is crap and anyone connected to it is an enemy of freedom. period. There can be no difference of opinion as any other opinion is wrong. We either have free speech or we don't when it comes to the political venue. This is not about yelling fire in a theatre. Well maybe it is, but if the building is burning, is it then a crime?
Anybody ought to be able to spend every penny he has in the pursuit of whatever he chooses, politicaly, in our free society. It just should be done in the light of day, not the darkness. The answer is full disclosure or prision, period. How simple is that!
I disagree with the McCain-Feingold law and so should everyone on this forum. Reason: We don't believe firearms kill people. We believe people kill people and sometimes they use firearms.
Therefore the money does not corrupt the men. The men are already corrupt or are willing to be corrupted. So, according to this law, if you shut off the money (take away the guns) there will be no more corruption (crime). Yeah, Right!!
If you believe taking firearms away from honest people will stop crime and killing, the you should believe that taking money out of the political venue (and stoping the ability to publicy, as a group, rebut BS) will stop corruption in politics.
This law is crap and anyone connected to it is an enemy of freedom. period. There can be no difference of opinion as any other opinion is wrong. We either have free speech or we don't when it comes to the political venue. This is not about yelling fire in a theatre. Well maybe it is, but if the building is burning, is it then a crime?
Anybody ought to be able to spend every penny he has in the pursuit of whatever he chooses, politicaly, in our free society. It just should be done in the light of day, not the darkness. The answer is full disclosure or prision, period. How simple is that!
papercut
Member
FWIW, there might be some hope.
I haven't read the entire court ruling (my limited number of brain cells doesn't allow me to comprehend that much legal caterwauling in a brief amount of time). However, there is some slight hope with regard to the McCain-Feingold 1st Amendment Redaction Act.
Some of you might be familiar with Neal Boortz, a libertarian-oriented radio talk show host in Atlanta, Georgia. During one of his many tirades against the Supreme Court's decision on this law, he mentioned one ray of hope. According to Boortz, somewhere in that decision, the 5-judge majority included wording that essentially meant, "we're ruling this way because we don't think you proved your point, but feel free to come back with another arguement." In other words, in upholding the law, the court said they'd welcome another challenge.
I haven't read the entire court ruling (my limited number of brain cells doesn't allow me to comprehend that much legal caterwauling in a brief amount of time). However, there is some slight hope with regard to the McCain-Feingold 1st Amendment Redaction Act.
Some of you might be familiar with Neal Boortz, a libertarian-oriented radio talk show host in Atlanta, Georgia. During one of his many tirades against the Supreme Court's decision on this law, he mentioned one ray of hope. According to Boortz, somewhere in that decision, the 5-judge majority included wording that essentially meant, "we're ruling this way because we don't think you proved your point, but feel free to come back with another arguement." In other words, in upholding the law, the court said they'd welcome another challenge.
- Status
