Contact Form

Name

Email *

Message *

Showing posts with label 1st Amendment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 1st Amendment. Show all posts

Monday, August 20, 2018

Second Amendment Survives!

Judges Shut Down Professors’ Attack on the Second Amendment

 Print
An effort to stop Texans from legally carrying handguns on university campuses has failed. What some would call a twisted interpretation of the Constitution by three University of Texas at Austin professors was soundly shut down Thursday by a panel of three federal judges.
The Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals judges determined the professors’ claim that the campus carry law infringes upon their First, Second and 14th Amendment rights was invalid.
The claims made by the professors in their lawsuit filed two years ago may leave some people scratching their heads. The reason may be found in a review of the facts.
The full ruling of the judges may be viewed online. Here is the basic breakdown, one amendment at a time:
TRENDING: Tucker to Univision Reporter: What Do You Think You Own Tacos Or Something?
How does campus carry infringe upon the First Amendment? According to professors Mia Carter, Jennifer Glass and Lisa Moore, students and professors might be too afraid to discuss controversial topics in the classroom when someone in the room might be armed without their knowledge.
“Compelling professors at a public university to allow, without any limitation or restriction, students to carry concealed guns in their classrooms chills their First Amendment rights to academic freedom,” the lawsuit said, according to The Texas Tribune.
The appeals court panel affirmed the dismissal of all claims by a district court judge. In the matter of the First Amendment, the district court judge had ruled that the plaintiffs “cannot manufacture standing by self-censoring her speech based on what she alleges to be a reasonable probability that concealed-carry license holders will intimidate professors and students in the classroom.”

Were the courts correct in rejecting the professors' lawsuit against campus carry?

   
Completing this poll entitles you to Conservative Tribune news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
You're logged in to Facebook. Click here to log out.
In their lawsuit, the plaintiffs claimed that the campus carry law did not meet the “well-regulated” part of the Second Amendment. The judges called that spin on the amendment “admittedly fresh” but “invalid.”
This brings us to the 14th Amendment, which is not part of the Bill of Rights, as the prior two are. This amendment deals with citizenship and the rights of American citizens:
So how on earth does a student opting to carry a means of self-defense on campus infringe upon someone else’s citizenship or rights under the 14th Amendment? Hand on tight. It’s a doozy of an explanation.
The professors claimed in their lawsuit that campus carry violated the amendment because “the university lacks a rational basis for determining where students can or cannot concealed-carry handguns on campus.”
RELATED: Satanic Temple Protests Ten Commandments Monument with Goat-Headed Statue
The federal judges shot that down as well, saying that Glass “ultimately fails to address Texas’s arguments concerning rational basis. Instead she simply argues that the prohibited concealed-carry zones are an ‘inexplicable hodge-podge.'”
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton applauded the decision in a statement Thursday.
“The lawsuit was filed because the professors disagreed with the law, not because they had any legal substance to their claim,” Paxton said. “The right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed for all Americans, including college students, and the 5th Circuit’s decision prevents that right from being stripped away by three individuals who oppose the law enacted by the Legislature.”
The case might not be over, yet. The professors can fight this ruling by asking for a “full appeals court” hearing or, within 90 days, opt to take the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Their attorney, Renea Hicks, told The Dallas Morning News he doesn’t expect they’ll ask the appeals court to rehear their case.
“I’m doubtful that there’ll be a request for en banc review,” Hicks said. “As to asking for [Supreme Court] review, that’s something we’ll just have to discuss amongst ourselves when we all can coordinate schedules and sit down and meet.”
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.

Friday, March 28, 2014

50 Years Ago News Media Was Significantly Different From Today. Why Should Government Impose Rules On Who Is A Reporter? It Is Called Censorship Opportunities.

Bill Authorizing Government To Define Legitimate Journalism A Political Albatross For RINOs, Democrats

March 28, 2014 by  
 13 3
 
 1 29
Bill Authorizing Government To Define Legitimate Journalism A Political Albatross For RINOs, Democrats

Another attempt from Congressional Democrats to define the media faces a shaky future. If Senator John Cornyn (R-Texas) is right, the so-called media “shield law” bill, which essentially segments application of the 1st Amendment to lock out citizen journalists while favoring members of the media establishment, will never see a floor vote – even though it has been awaiting action since last September.
The Free Flow of Information Act, which in its original version died in the 110th Congress, is designed to codify who is (and who isn’t) protected from subpoenas, as well as who can be compelled to reveal their sources in court. Supported by media companies and opposed by bloggers, the bill seeks, for the first time, to augment 1st Amendment guarantees of free speech by affording card-carrying journalists the right to refuse to testify against sources, while denying independent reporters from all walks of life that same protection.
The bill is co-authored by Senators Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Lindesey Graham (R-S.C.), which probably tells you all you need to know. Schumer said last week the measure could come up for a Senate vote at any time, boasting that “we have the 60 votes” needed for passage.
Cornyn scoffed at that assertion this week, telling Breitbart Schumer doesn’t have that kind of support for the vote – and he knows it:
He’s bluffing, Cornyn retorts.
“If he had the votes to pass it, it already would have been passed,” Cornyn says, adding, “This isn’t about passing legislation, this is about distracting the public’s attention and changing the subject from the failed policies of this administration. I think you could put this in that same category.”
“…They want to pick and choose which journalists are covered,” the Texan Republican told Breitbart News. “In other words, if you’re a blogger they might not cover you, but if you work for the New York Times they might. Given the changes in the way we get information and the way we consume news, that really smacks to me in essence of government licensing who’s an official ‘journalist’ for the purposes of a shield law and who’s not. If there is one thing I can glean from the First Amendment, it is that government should not be in the business of licensing the news media.”
That’s a hard argument to rebut on the merits, and involving government in the business of defining its watchers doesn’t make good political sense, either.
Indeed, in a midterm election year in which embattled Democrats and their moderate GOP peers need a rallying point to ensure they hang on to their incumbencies, it’s a puzzling political strategy to push legislation that offends the sensibilities of a public already fed up with near-daily revelations of government infringements on their civil liberties.
Cornyn said he believes Senators who support the bill are clearly placing short-term, pet-issue politics ahead of both big-picture political strategizing and the good of the American people.
“Cornyn believes the bill’s timing – and the administration’s backing of it – appears to be aimed at alleviating criticism of the Justice Department’s secret attainment of Associated Press phone conversations and the administration’s similar actions against Fox News’ James Rosen, among other media targeting,” Breitbart reports.
“You remember when this [bill] was recently resurrected? It was essentially an attempt to deflect… from the Department of Justice and this administration… the criticism they were taking [from] James Rosen and other traditional journalists. So, I really question the timing of all of this,” Cornyn said.