nra – violating the first amendment to allow continued nra defense of the second amendment.
violating the first amendment to allow continued nra defense of the second amendment.
Explain.
Multiple sources tell me the National Rifle Association is planning to endorse liberal Harry Reid against pro-gun champion Sharron Angle.
Two weeks ago, I told you about the carveout the NRA received in exchange for their support for the DISCLOSE ACT deal.
Then this week, RedState broke the story of the “gag order” the NRA issued to members of its Board on the Kagan nomination.
Now, I’m getting credible reports that the NRA is leaning toward endorsing Harry Reid, even though the NRA is finally saying it will score a vote on Kagan — something that was not a sure thing.
RedState broke the story of the “gag order” the NRA issued to members of its Board on the Kagan nomination.
Not sure how that constitutes violating the First Amendment. For one thing, the Board is the NRA’s governing body; presumably the Board issued the gag order to itself.
If, however, the EVP issued it, the Board can tell him to go screw himself. They can even fire his ass if they want.
Having finally tracked down the “gag order” story, I reiterate that the Board cannot be ordered to do a damn thing by NRA management.
This story is about gun carrying on college campuses, right? is it or is it not the right of the people who control private property (the campus) to make the rules about what you are allowed to carry around on said property? The same probably applies to what you say on campus. You have a perfect right to say what you like; they have a perfect right to throw you out for saying it, much as if someone went into a synagogue and started spouting Muslim propaganda.
Is a public university “private” property?
As recently explained by the NRA; they are a single issue organization. The whole purpose of the NRA is to protect your Second Amendment rights. This does not mean that the people within the NRA don’t care about other issues and amendments but the organization’s sole focus is on preventing infringement on the Second Amendment rights.
This is not a secret. It has been repeatedly publicized by the NRA. They have even gone as far as to send out a press release and special communication to its members on why they would not oppose the Disclose Act. While as individuals they may find the Disclose Act disgusting and violating the Constitution as an organization their responsibility was to insure it did not hamper their ability to protect the Second Amendment.
BTW the sweet heart NRA deal in the Disclose Act applies to all organizations of a certain size; the size that most Unions fall into. How many more Unions are there then NRAs?
Most campi are not private property. They are generally publicly funded, at least in part. And even if they’re not in violation of the First Amendment, they’re certainly in violation of the notion of a university as a place to openly discuss ideas.
“The same probably applies to what you say on campus. You have a perfect right to say what you like; they have a perfect right to throw you out for saying it, much as if someone went into a synagogue and started spouting Muslim propaganda.
”
That depends. On a public campus this most certainly is NOT true. Because the government runs the campus, the government cannot restrict your speech (with the exception of a few well established forms of un-protected speech.) For a private campus, the answer is still “it depends.” While the Constitution is no longer the controlling document, contract law and state law may apply. For example, if the student handbook states that students have ‘academic freedom” to speak their minds, then students should reasonably expect that freedom. Some states have statutes that enforce first amendment rights on private campuses (California is one of them, I don’t know if Virginia is.)
More to the point, with the new Second Amendment precedent, one wonders how quickly public college gun bans will be re-examined/ struck down. If the city of Chicago’s handgun ban is unconstitutional, why isn’t the University of Illinois’s?
nra – violating the first amendment to allow continued nra defense of the second amendment.
Explain.
My Page Name
Not sure how that constitutes violating the First Amendment. For one thing, the Board is the NRA’s governing body; presumably the Board issued the gag order to itself.
If, however, the EVP issued it, the Board can tell him to go screw himself. They can even fire his ass if they want.
Having finally tracked down the “gag order” story, I reiterate that the Board cannot be ordered to do a damn thing by NRA management.
This story is about gun carrying on college campuses, right? is it or is it not the right of the people who control private property (the campus) to make the rules about what you are allowed to carry around on said property? The same probably applies to what you say on campus. You have a perfect right to say what you like; they have a perfect right to throw you out for saying it, much as if someone went into a synagogue and started spouting Muslim propaganda.
Is a public university “private” property?
As recently explained by the NRA; they are a single issue organization. The whole purpose of the NRA is to protect your Second Amendment rights. This does not mean that the people within the NRA don’t care about other issues and amendments but the organization’s sole focus is on preventing infringement on the Second Amendment rights.
This is not a secret. It has been repeatedly publicized by the NRA. They have even gone as far as to send out a press release and special communication to its members on why they would not oppose the Disclose Act. While as individuals they may find the Disclose Act disgusting and violating the Constitution as an organization their responsibility was to insure it did not hamper their ability to protect the Second Amendment.
BTW the sweet heart NRA deal in the Disclose Act applies to all organizations of a certain size; the size that most Unions fall into. How many more Unions are there then NRAs?
Most campi are not private property. They are generally publicly funded, at least in part. And even if they’re not in violation of the First Amendment, they’re certainly in violation of the notion of a university as a place to openly discuss ideas.
“The same probably applies to what you say on campus. You have a perfect right to say what you like; they have a perfect right to throw you out for saying it, much as if someone went into a synagogue and started spouting Muslim propaganda.
”
That depends. On a public campus this most certainly is NOT true. Because the government runs the campus, the government cannot restrict your speech (with the exception of a few well established forms of un-protected speech.) For a private campus, the answer is still “it depends.” While the Constitution is no longer the controlling document, contract law and state law may apply. For example, if the student handbook states that students have ‘academic freedom” to speak their minds, then students should reasonably expect that freedom. Some states have statutes that enforce first amendment rights on private campuses (California is one of them, I don’t know if Virginia is.)
More to the point, with the new Second Amendment precedent, one wonders how quickly public college gun bans will be re-examined/ struck down. If the city of Chicago’s handgun ban is unconstitutional, why isn’t the University of Illinois’s?