Man Loses his Gun permit after blog posting

[vvvvvvv]

His rhetoric was inflammatory, to be sure, but he didn't communicate a specific threat to anyone, did he?

Also, Anyone else here a fan of due process?

Sadly, most people here aren't fans of due process. They claim to be, but when presented with a scenario, they decide if due process is appropriate based on whether or not they agree with the alleged circumstances.

And your kids too,on allegations without a warrant.

Seen this too many times.

On the other hand, that guy in Arizona who survived the Tuscon shooting and who took photos of and publicly threated the life of that TEA party guy is definitely in some deep kimshee. Conviction in that case ought to be a slam dunk.

Woody

That guy's judgment in the period surrounding the incident was obviously impaired by post-traumatic stress. Whether he was suffering from it at the time of the incident is up for a jury to decide.

 

[skyydiver]

No crime. No arrest. Just seizure. This is a blow to the 1st and 2nd. The comments were stupid and hyperbolic. Before he even got in the mess with the cops, he was responding to critics and explaining his stance on why he does not believe that shooting politicians is acceptable in 2011. The blog in question (www.TJIC.com) is one of my favorite daily reads, or was. Not sure what the reason is for it being offline now. Anyway, stupid comment, not criminal (at least according to the people who did not arrest him for anything).

 

[mons meg]

Ok, finally found the blog post from Volokh that pertains directly to this:

http://volokh.com/2011/01/10/the-fi...ch-that-allegedly-threatens-public-officials/

Note well:

2. In particular, the leading Supreme Court case, Watts v. U.S. (1969), held that the Constitution protects even the statement "If they ever make me carry a rifle the first man I want to get in my sights is L.B.J.," said at antiwar rally. Statements that place the President in a bullseye or a crosshair might thus be entirely constitutionally protected, if for instance the statement is in a Democratic or Republican party mailer urging people to give money to help defeat the President in the next election. A reasonable reader would not perceive such a flyer as a threat that the author, or the author's confederates, are going to actually shoot the President. As Jack Shafer (Slate) and many other have noted, martial metaphors are commonplace in American politics. The mere use of such a metaphor does not strip the speech of constitutional protection.

They go on and on, but the gist of this is per Watts, it has to be a "true threat", not just heated political rhetoric.

 

[Hobbes]

Ok, finally found the blog post from Volokh that pertains directly to this:

http://volokh.com/2011/01/10/the-fi...ch-that-allegedly-threatens-public-officials/

Note well:



They go on and on, but the gist of this is per Watts, it has to be a "true threat", not just heated political rhetoric.

It's not Exactly the same. Close but not exact.

In the OP the implied threat seems to be proactive.
"1 down and 534 more to go" indicating an established intent to pursue violence against political figures.

In the case you cited the threat seems to be more reactive.
"If they ever make me carry a rifle the first man I want to get in my sights is L.B.J.," Indicating pursuit of violence "If they ever make me carry a rifle"

It's the kind of thing lawyers make a lot of money arguing about.

 

[mons meg]

His statement was not directed at any particular person, and no reasonable person would think that there was actual violence being planned given the context of his remarks. Thus, it does not meet the definition of "true threat".

Look, at the end of the day, Maryland is a horrible place to own a gun.

 

[greenbeetle]

Verbal or written threats are considered assault. It seems there is some debate as to whether or not the verbage acutally constituted a threat.

In any case I'm glad someone is looking closely to see if he is safe to own a gun. At the end of the day everyone agrees posts like that give gun owners a bad name.

 

[mons meg]

greenbeetle, I'm not willing to defend the Second Amendment at the expense of the First.

 

[vvvvvvv]

In any case I'm glad someone is looking closely to see if he is safe to own a gun. At the end of the day everyone agrees posts like that give gun owners a bad name.

You imply that anyone who disagrees with a politician is not "safe to own a gun."

And no, I don't agree "that posts like that give gun owners a bad name."