Daily Archives: January 16, 2015

Mexican Government Backs Lawsuit Against U.S. Border Patrol Agent

Posted: January 16, 2015 at 4:48 pm

The Mexican government is throwing its weight behind a U.S. lawsuit filed by the parents of a Mexican teenager who was killed in his country when a U.S. Border Patrol agent fired his weapon across the border.

When agents of the United States Government violate fundamental rights of Mexican nationals, it is one of Mexicos priorities to ensure that the United States has provided adequate means to hold the agents accountable and compensate the victims, lawyers for the Mexican governmentwrote in a brief filed on Thursday.

The case marks the first time a U.S. appeals court has considered the legal implications of a cross-border shooting. The question before the New Orleans-based Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is whether the U.S. Constitution reaches into the Mexican side of the 2,000-mile border with the U.S.

The Fifth Circuit ruled 2-1 in June that the parents ofSergio Adrian Hernandez Guereca could sueU.S. Border Patrol Agent Jesus Mesa Jr. for alleged violations of the Fifth Amendment, which provides that no person shall be . . . deprived of life,liberty, or property, without due process of law.

The panel threw out claims against the U.S. government and Mr. Mesas supervisors. The Fifth Circuit has agreed to rehear the case, with all active judges participating, at the request of the U.S. government and Mr. Mesa.

The Mexican government sought to assure the court that it had no qualms about the U.S. Constitution nosing into its territory, in this instance at least.

Any invasion of Mexicos sovereigntyoccurred when Agent Mesa shot his gun across the border at SergioHernndez. Requiring Agent Mesa to answer for that action in U.S. courttothe same extent as if Hernndez were a U.S. national or on U.S. soilonly shows respect for Mexicos sovereignty, the brief said.

The lawsuit alleges that in June 2010, Mr. Hernndez was playing with a group of friends in the cement culvert that separates El Paso, Texas, from Ciudad Juarez, Mexico. The game involved touching the barbed-wire fence on the U.S. side of the border, and then running back down the incline of the culvert into Mexico.

When Mr. Mesa arrived on the scene, he detained one of Mr. Hernndezs friends on the U.S. side of the border. Still in U.S. territory, Mr. Mesa then shot Mr. Hernndez, who had retreated down the culvert back into Mexico, according to the complaint.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation said after the incident that Mr. Mesa, who is still a member of the Border Patrol, used force because the group was throwing rocks at him, ignoring his commands to stop.

Read the original here:
Mexican Government Backs Lawsuit Against U.S. Border Patrol Agent

Posted in Fifth Amendment | Comments Off on Mexican Government Backs Lawsuit Against U.S. Border Patrol Agent

Penalties for DUI testing refusal upheld

Posted: at 4:48 pm

The North Dakota Supreme Court on Thursday upheld a criminal judgment against a man who argued that the state violated his Fourth Amendment rights, as well as the state equivalent of those rights, by charging him for refusing to submit to a chemical test.

The court's decision answered a question asked shortly after North Dakota lawmakers criminalized refusal to submit as part of a broader effort to stiffen the penalties for drunken driving in 2013.

"Driving is a privilege, not a constitutional right, and issubject to reasonable controlby the state under its police power," Supreme Court Justice Lisa McEvers wrote in an opinion signed by all five justices.

The justices affirmed the argument offered by the state that one gives implied consent to be tested when one gets behind the wheel of a motor vehicle.

In doing so, the justices upheld the conviction against Danny Birchfield, who drove his vehicle into a Morton County ditch in October of 2013 in a case that would go from the South Central District Court to the North Dakota Supreme Court.

Several states criminalize the refusal to submit to a chemical test, often by making the penalty for refusal the same as that for being convicted of drunken driving.

McEvers cited several court decisions, at the state and federal levels, upholding states' rights to do so.

The North Dakota Supreme Court also ruled the 2013 United States Supreme Court decision in McNeely v. Missouri, rendered shortly before North Dakota criminalized refusal, did not invalidate the legal framework for criminal penalties.

Attorneys for Birchfield and another defendant accused of refusal to submit argued that the McNeely decision, which ruled that the forcible extraction of blood from a suspected drunken driver constituted an unreasonable search and seizure, applied to criminal penalties as well. The attorneys argued that by punishing a person for refusing to be tested, the state effectively removed that person's right to refuse being tested.

McEvers wrote that "since the (United States) Supreme Court's ruling in McNeely, criminal refusal statutes have continued to withstand Fourth Amendment challenges, particularly in Minnesota."

See original here:
Penalties for DUI testing refusal upheld

Posted in Fourth Amendment | Comments Off on Penalties for DUI testing refusal upheld

SUPPORT THE SECOND AMENDMENT Guns Across America 01/19/13 – Video

Posted: at 4:48 pm


SUPPORT THE SECOND AMENDMENT Guns Across America 01/19/13
Check out my *new website* for firearms related content! DON #39;T FORGET TO EMAIL YOUR SENATORS, CONGRESSMEN THE PRESIDENT HERE: http:

By: Jan Hopkins

Go here to see the original:
SUPPORT THE SECOND AMENDMENT Guns Across America 01/19/13 - Video

Posted in Second Amendment | Comments Off on SUPPORT THE SECOND AMENDMENT Guns Across America 01/19/13 – Video

Carley 720p – Video

Posted: at 4:48 pm


Carley 720p

By: Women of the Second Amendment

Visit link:
Carley 720p - Video

Posted in Second Amendment | Comments Off on Carley 720p – Video

THE BEGINNING OF THE END OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT AND OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS. – Video

Posted: at 4:48 pm


THE BEGINNING OF THE END OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT AND OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS.
THE SYSTEMATIC OPPRESSION BY THE MARYLAND TRANSPORT AUTHORITY POLICE. THE BEGINNING OF THE END OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT AND OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL ...

By: John Tonnesen

More:
THE BEGINNING OF THE END OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT AND OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS. - Video

Posted in Second Amendment | Comments Off on THE BEGINNING OF THE END OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT AND OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS. – Video

NRA News Commentators | Ep. 102: Colion Noir How to Defend Free Speech – Video

Posted: at 4:48 pm


NRA News Commentators | Ep. 102: Colion Noir How to Defend Free Speech
Colion Noir reminds us that the Second Amendment protects the First, and says the next time terrorists decide they don #39;t like what you say, the only thing that will stop them is someone exercisin...

By: NRA News

Read more:
NRA News Commentators | Ep. 102: Colion Noir How to Defend Free Speech - Video

Posted in Second Amendment | Comments Off on NRA News Commentators | Ep. 102: Colion Noir How to Defend Free Speech – Video

1st National Reserve Joins Second Amendment Foundation as 2015 Gold Sponsor

Posted: at 4:48 pm

Beaumont, Texas (PRWEB) January 15, 2015

1st National Reserve (http://www.1stNationalReserve.com), of Beaumont, Texas, one of Americas leading gold, silver and rare coin dealers, has joined the Bellevue, Washington-based Second Amendment Foundation (http://www.saf.org) as a partner in the fight to restore and protect the right of law-abiding persons to keep and bear arms.

In announcing the sponsorship, 1st National Reserve Vice President of Marketing Paul Stein stated: "We have long supported the right to keep and bear arms. Partnering with Second Amendment Foundation, our ongoing commitment to protecting the right to keep and bear arms will greatly expand. The Second Amendment Foundation is a group at the cutting edge of firearms law and on the frontlines protecting the rights of American citizens."

We are proud to partner with 1st National Reserve, The Official Bullion & Rare Coin Partner of Second Amendment Foundation. Our partnership not only provides SAF with immediate benefits that will allow us to continue and expand our important work protecting and restoring the right to keep and bear arms, but offers us a wide array of ways to work together to the benefit of our members and supporters in 2015 and beyond, said SAF Director of Development Ray Carter.

"Because of newly passed and impending anti-gun legislation, SAF must be ready to respond swiftly with meaningful legal action. This new support from 1st National Reserve will substantially increase our effectiveness," Carter explained.

1st National Reserve (http://www.1stNationalReserve.Com) is one of Americas leading gold, silver, and rare coins dealers and is The Official Bullion & Rare Coin Partner of Second Amendment Foundation. Serving SAF members and customers nationwide with an A+ Better Business Bureau rating, 1st National Reserve and Americas Gold Expert, Mike Fuljenz, help clients diversify with gold, silver and rare coins. Known as Americas Gold Expert, Mike is a frequent expert guest on local and national business and personal finance programs including Fox Business Network and CNBC, and has been quoted in The Wall Street Journal, Kiplinger's, Los Angeles Times and many other broadcast, print and online news media.

The Second Amendment Foundation (http://www.saf.org), found in 1974, is the nation's largest and oldest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group fighting to restore the constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms and our nations proud heritage of private firearms ownership. Today, SAF includes more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts both vigorous legal and educational programs. Presently, the Second Amendment Foundation has nearly thirty active lawsuits before state and federal courts across the country and conducts the Preemption Legal Project, demanding cities and counties comply with state and federal gun laws. The Gun Rights Policy Conference, publications and leadership conferences are vital parts of SAFs educational program now joined by the new SAF Training Division. Announced only weeks ago, the Second Amendment Foundation Training Division (SAFTD) offers programs directed at training new and inexperienced shooters in the defensive use of pistols, shotguns and carbines.

More here:
1st National Reserve Joins Second Amendment Foundation as 2015 Gold Sponsor

Posted in Second Amendment | Comments Off on 1st National Reserve Joins Second Amendment Foundation as 2015 Gold Sponsor

C.A.B.B. Notes: First Amendment Rights – 10/10/14 – Video

Posted: at 4:48 pm


C.A.B.B. Notes: First Amendment Rights - 10/10/14
Topic: "First Amendment"

By: CATTV Bennington

Read the original:
C.A.B.B. Notes: First Amendment Rights - 10/10/14 - Video

Posted in First Amendment | Comments Off on C.A.B.B. Notes: First Amendment Rights – 10/10/14 – Video

Know Your Rights: What Isn’t Free Speech? – Video

Posted: at 4:48 pm


Know Your Rights: What Isn #39;t Free Speech?
Yes, you have a right to free speech as an American citizen, but where does that right end? AJ+ gives you a cheat sheet on which kinds of speech are NOT protected under the First Amendment....

By: AJ+

Read more:
Know Your Rights: What Isn't Free Speech? - Video

Posted in First Amendment | Comments Off on Know Your Rights: What Isn’t Free Speech? – Video

US Supreme Court: Can Government Restrict How a Church Can Use Signs?

Posted: at 4:48 pm

January 15, 2015|7:42 am

(Photo: REUTERS/Gary Cameron)

The exterior of the U.S. Supreme Court is seen in Washington March 5, 2014. U.S. Supreme Court justices on Wednesday appeared to look for a compromise that would enable them to avoid overruling a 26-year-old precedent that made it easier for plaintiffs to negotiate large class action settlements.

On January 12th, I attended Supreme Court oral arguments in a caseReed v. Town of Gilbertwhich will determine how easily the government can restrict signs giving directions to church services. Specifically, the Court is set to decide whether, under free speech protections of the First Amendment, a local government's mere assertion that its sign code (despite on its face discriminating based on content) lacks a discriminatory motive renders the sign code content-neutral and justifies the code's differential treatment of signs pointing the way to a church's meeting location.

In this case, the Town of Gilbert had divided signs up based on whether they were ideological, political, or directionaland imposed different restrictions on each category of sign. Good News Community Church in Gilbert, Arizona, and its pastor, Clyde Reed, sued, claiming that signs pointing the way to their Sunday morning service (which contained religious speech and directions, and thus resulted in them being placed in the directional sign category) were treated less fairly and that this unfair treatment violated the First Amendment.

At oral arguments, both sides received their fair share of questions, but the justices were noticeably more skeptical of the town's argumentespecially its claim that it could severely restrict a sign containing ideological content announcing an event if the sign also included directions to that event, while at the same time easing restrictions on a sign containing the same exact ideological content and yet lacking directions.

The town attempted to defend itself by arguing it had an interest in preventing roadside clutter arising from numerable directional signs. But then it admitted it was granting preference to ideological and political signs because of the special First Amendment protection offered them, which prompted questions from the justices asking how the town was not impermissibly discriminating based on the content of the signs.

A breakthrough moment occurred when the town's counsel admitted under questioning by Justice Breyer that the town could put up a sign saying: "Come to the next service next Tuesday, 4th and H Streets," but could not add "three blocks right and two blocks left" to that same sign because that would make it a directional sign. Justice Breyer's response: "Well, my goodness. I meanI mean, on that, it does sound as if the town is being a little unreasonable, doesn't it?", pretty well captured the justices' view of the case.

The justices will now consider the legal issues and issue a written opinion deciding the case sometime before the end of June 2015.

While seeming more innocuous than some of the other high profile social issues which have reached the court over the last year or so, this case matters (significantly) to free speech law. It therefore matters a lot to Americans of all opinions and interests who want to take part in public debates and discussions over numerable issues in our country. Even if it doesn't matter to them personally, it shouldfor it affects their legal rights under the First Amendment.

Read the original here:
US Supreme Court: Can Government Restrict How a Church Can Use Signs?

Posted in First Amendment | Comments Off on US Supreme Court: Can Government Restrict How a Church Can Use Signs?