Protesting, defending 2nd Amendment rights?

August 22nd, 2016

HoustonNAACP

Can’t make this stuff up.  I wish they’d read their “pocket Constitution” and amendments.  How is NAACP related to their 2nd Amendment rights?  Let’s see a 1,000 word essay, due tomorrow!

HoustonNAACP3

Yesterday there are armed white folks in Houston, Texas, sporting guns and waving Confederate flags:

“Obviously we’re exercising our Second Amendment rights but that’s because we have to defend ourselves. Their organizations and their people are shooting people based on the color of their skin. We’re not. We definitely will defend ourselves, but we’re not out here to start any problems.”

Really… It’s a crucial distinction that they’re talking about “2nd Amendment rights” and not “1st Amendment rights” here, that their focus is on guns, and not speech.  At what point is inflammatory “speech” of flags and open carry in front of NAACP headquarters criminal incitement or terroristic threats?

HoustonNAACP2

Notice the “14 WORDS” sign.  Those “14 WORDS” are a fundamental slogan of white supremacists, originally from David Lane, The Order, The Silent Brotherhood, Bruders Schweigen: “We must secure the existence of our people and a future for White children.”  He also authored the “88 Precepts” while in jail serving his 190 year sentence.  Words like this should not be taken lightly.  The actions of Lane’s group included the machine-gun mowing down of Alan Berg, Jewish radio talk show host, armored car robberies and counterfeiting, racketeering, and conspiracy.  He died in jail.

Incitement is a difficult concept, much is allowed, and in reviewing Constitutional law on incitement, the key is to be vague, to use inference, to speak of possibilities, and that’s OK.  Urges to action NOW is another matter.  So thus far, these “protesters” (again, what exactly are they “protesting?”) seem to be within bounds, unlike Drumpf (one protester yesterday was wearing a Trump hat), who has gone over the edge with direct, targeted incitement:

Is Donald Trump inciting violence? He might be. – Slate

 What about terroristic threats?  In Texas:

Texas Penal Code § 22.07. Terroristic Threat

(a)  A person commits an offense if he threatens to commit any offense involving violence to any person or property with intent to:

(1) cause a reaction of any type to his threat by an official or volunteer agency organized to deal with emergencies;

(2) place any person in fear of imminent serious bodily injury;

(3) prevent or interrupt the occupation or use of a building, room, place of assembly, place to which the public has access, place of employment or occupation, aircraft, automobile, or other form of conveyance, or other public place;

(4) cause impairment or interruption of public communications, public transportation, public water, gas, or power supply or other public service;

(5) place the public or a substantial group of the public in fear of serious bodily injury;  or

(6) influence the conduct or activities of a branch or agency of the federal government, the state, or a political subdivision of the state.

(b) An offense under Subsection (a)(1) is a Class B misdemeanor.

(c) An offense under Subsection (a)(2) is a Class B misdemeanor, except that the offense is a Class A misdemeanor if the offense:

(1) is committed against a member of the person’s family or household or otherwise constitutes family violence;  or

(2) is committed against a public servant.

(d) An offense under Subsection (a)(3) is a Class A misdemeanor, unless the actor causes pecuniary loss of $1,500 or more to the owner of the building, room, place, or conveyance, in which event the offense is a state jail felony.

(e) An offense under Subsection (a)(4), (a)(5), or (a)(6) is a felony of the third degree.

(f) In this section:

(1) “Family” has the meaning assigned by Section 71.003, Family Code.

(2) “Family violence” has the meaning assigned by Section 71.004, Family Code.

(3) “Household” has the meaning assigned by Section 71.005, Family Code.

(g) For purposes of Subsection (d), the amount of pecuniary loss is the amount of economic loss suffered by the owner of the building, room, place, or conveyance as a result of the prevention or interruption of the occupation or use of the building, room, place, or conveyance.

I’d be afraid to go to work that day if I worked at NAACP HQ, but likely they’re closed on Sunday, so that threat charge is then likely dodged.

Are the many people in the U.S. killed lately by white supremacists being considered, is it being taken into account?

How is the NAACP related to the protesters 2nd Amendment rights?  Houston, we have a problem…

Posted by Carol A. Overland
Filed in Legislative & Policy, Political Sense (non?)
No Comments »