Second Amendment Found. Sues Library System Over Internet Censorship of Gun Websites

[FrankRep]

Second Amendment Foundation Sues Library System Over Internet Censorship of Gun Websites


The Second Amendment Foundation and three Washington State residents have filed a federal lawsuit against a north-central Washington regional library system for denying them access to websites that include information on firearms and publications dealing with guns.


Complaint (pdf) (93 KB)
http://www.saf.org/wa.library.lawsuit/wa.ncls.complaint.pdf


Second Amendment Foundation
http://www.saf.org/

 

[Carehn]

Good

 

[ARealConservative]

This lawsuit actually violates the ideas we are supposed to believe in.

The goal is to get the federal government out of the way, not to go running to them for protection.

What amendment are we using to claim a violation anyway? The 2nd amendment is one of the few that haven't been incorporated anyway, and that one deals with guns, not gun websites or pamphlets.

Obviously I find the actions of the library silly, but the fight doesn't need escalated to the federal level IMO

 

[SeanEdwards]

This lawsuit actually violates the ideas we are supposed to believe in.

The goal is to get the federal government out of the way, not to go running to them for protection.

What amendment are we using to claim a violation anyway? The 2nd amendment is one of the few that haven't been incorporated anyway, and that one deals with guns, not gun websites or pamphlets.

Obviously I find the actions of the library silly, but the fight doesn't need escalated to the federal level IMO

Um, no. This is a report of a perfectly valid legal action. It is not a call for more government, at any level. Appealing to the courts for redress is not a violation of the Constitution.

 

[Paul Revered]

Good news!

 

[Doktor_Jeep]

THIS is the way to beat the bastards, with their own game.

 

[tmosley]

From your title, I was hoping that you meant that someone in congress had read the second amendment and understood what it actually means.

But a victory against censorship is good too.

 

[maeqFREEDOMfree]

sounds good, i can't wait to see where it goes

what are they suing them for as in what are they looking to gain if the case is ruled in their favor? or is it just a nice settlement they're fishin for?

 

[Doktor_Jeep]

I have an idea.

Everybody go to the local library and see if this kind of censorship is going on there. And if it is, file a suit.


This is how our enemy pin-pricked liberty to death. Now it's time to turn the tables, but in the direction of freedom.


Of course, when that starts to happen, the enemy will attack, but we will be on the right side of history, just like the patriots at Lexington Green.

Redress of grievances first, shoot the bastards later (when they start the shooting because they are indeed the bad guys).

 

[ARealConservative]

Um, no. This is a report of a perfectly valid legal action. It is not a call for more government, at any level. Appealing to the courts for redress is not a violation of the Constitution.

um, you didn't even address the issues I raised.

You might like to bypass the will of the state and allow the Federal Government to intervene - but it is not consistent with this platform.

Todays bastardized version of the constitution might give the Federal Government enough power to dictate how state libraries operate, that is part of the problem we are supposed to be fighting.

 

[SeanEdwards]

um, you didn't even address the issues I raised.

You might like to bypass the will of the state and allow the Federal Government to intervene - but it is not consistent with this platform.

The plaintiffs claim it violates the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution. So why should the case not be heard in federal court? The will of the state does not extend to violating the Constitutional rights of its residents.

"The NCRL’s policy of refusing to disable its Internet filters upon the request of adults who wish to conduct bona fide research via the Internet or to access the Web for other lawful purposes violates the First Amendment of the United States Constitution (which is made applicable to state entities through the Fourteenth Amendment) on its face and as applied."

 

[ARealConservative]

The plaintiffs claim it violates the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution. So why should the case not be heard in federal court? The will of the state does not extend to violating the Constitutional rights of its residents.

"The NCRL’s policy of refusing to disable its Internet filters upon the request of adults who wish to conduct bona fide research via the Internet or to access the Web for other lawful purposes violates the First Amendment of the United States Constitution (which is made applicable to state entities through the Fourteenth Amendment) on its face and as applied."

1st amendment ~ Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

So now we support the 14th amendment and incorporation of the bill of rights? Original intent gets trumped for political expedience? This makes you just as guilty as all those that have violated the constitution before you.

Count me out of the hypocrisy!