Category Archives: Police state

Illinois State Assembly approves gun confiscation bill

The state legislature of Illinois has approved a bill, HB 1465, which:

  • Requires 18 to 20-year-olds to hand over or transfer ownership of heretofore legally possessed “assault weapons” — which the NRA-ILA describes as commonly-owned “semi-automatic firearms” — as well as any magazines that hold more than ten rounds of ammunition.
  • Bans the sale of certain types of semi-automatic weapons to individuals under age 21.
  • Makes owning such a weapon by persons under age 21 a Class 3 felony for a first offense and a Class 2 felony for a second offense.

The government forcing people to forfeit or hand over weapons previously deemed legal is confiscation.

On February 28, 2018, the bill was passed by a vote of 64-51 in the State House of Representatives. On March 14, 2018, the Illinois State Senate passed the bill by a vote of 33-22. Both the House and Senate are controlled by a Democrat majority.

HB 1465 was introduced in Illinois’ House by Rep. Michelle Mussman (D). The bill’s 23 co-sponsors are all Democrats: 16 females, 7 males.

HB 1465 was introduced in Illinois’ Senate by Senate President John Cullerton (D-Chicago). There were 7 co-sponsors, among whom was Republican Sen. Jim Oberweis, whom the NRA had given an “A” rating in 2014.

The bill deviates from the traditional military definition of assault rifle, requiring the weapon to be capable of selective fire options like three round bursts and fully-automatic, and instead defines it as any semi-automatic rifle or pistol with a belt or magazine fed system capable of more than 10 rounds or featuring a folding stock or the ability to accept tactical attachments such as scopes. The definition also includes some .50 caliber rifles.

Critics of the gun confiscation bill were taken aback by “the idea that the government would confiscate property.” The bill’s House sponsor, Rep. Michelle Mussman, responded to these concerns by assuring them “authorities will not visit homes to pick up weapons.” Rather, “a first offense for getting caught with prohibited firearms would be a misdemeanor offense.”

After the state Senate passed the bill, HB 1465 must go back to the House for reconciliation because the Senate added an amendment, meant to attract Republican support for the bill, which would allow individuals who owned such weapons prior to the passage of the law to use that fact as an affirmative defense when facing felony charges under the legislation.

But Sen. Chapin Rose (R) told that the amendment would not necessarily protect owners of the weapons from facing felony charges if they do not surrender them. He believes the bill should have exempted current owners of the weapons from facing charges, rather than just offering them an affirmative defense while under arrest.

If Illinois Gov. Bruce Rauner (R) signs the bill, HB 1465 will become law. Residents under the age of 21 will have 90 days to turn over the guns and magazines.

Rauner recently vetoed a bill that would have required gun retailers to be licensed by the state, claiming that to be “unnecessary, burdensome regulation.” Gubernatorial vetoes can be overturned by a three-fifths majority vote in both houses of the Illinois General Assembly.

Illinois also recently passed other gun control bills in addition to the gun confiscation HB 1465:

  • The Illinois State Senate passed HB 1467, which bans bump stocks and trigger cranks, and added an amendment to that bill allowing localities to ban what it defines as assault weapons, potentially creating different gun laws on a town-by-town basis in Illinois.
  • The Illinois House of Representatives passed HB 1468, which would impose a 72-hour waiting period on purchases of items defined as assault weapons. The Senate has yet to vote on the measure.

Sources: Breitbart; Fox2; WAND-TV; Truth In Media

NRA members in Illinois should read this: “Supreme Court ruled in 2008 that Second Amendment applies to individuals, not militias, and may include military weapons”.



Gun Control: Seattle police uses new mental-health law to confiscate gun from non-violent man

On March 1, 2018, Seattle’s police department became the first law enforcement agency in Washington state to confiscate a firearm under a new law known as an Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO) — a gun control law that permits police or family members, with a judge’s permission, to temporarily take firearms from people who may present a danger to others or themselves.

The unnamed 31-year-old man, who is suspected of being mentally ill, is described by neighbors as “intimidating” people and “staring down” customers through store-front windows with a gun holstered at his side. Tony Montana, who knows the man from his apartment complex, said, “He was roaming the hallways with a .25 caliber automatic. And it created a lot of fear obviously because I didn’t know if he was coming after me or gonna just start shooting the place up.”

Note: Washington state allows concealed carry of firearms, with permit.

Seattle police say the department received several calls about the man’s escalating behavior, including from a restaurant near the man’s home in the 2200 block of Second Avenue complaining that the man was harassing them while carrying a holstered firearm. The volume of complaints convinced Seattle police to seek an Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO), aka red flag law, requiring the man to surrender all his firearms.

The man refused to comply, so police returned with a warrant, arrested him at his apartment, seized a .25 caliber handgun, and are in the process of recovering several other firearms the man owned that are currently with a family member.

Sources: KOMO News; KATU2

On November 8, 2016, the Washington State legislature passed Initiative Measure No. 1491: Extreme Risk Protection Act (ERPA), which allows police to confiscate firearms from individuals deemed to be mentally ill and so are “at high risk of harming themselves or others.”

ERPA claims that individuals who pose a danger to themselves or others often exhibit signs that alert family, household members, or law enforcement to the threat. Signs that the person “may soon commit an act of violence” can include “acts or threats of violence, self-harm, or the abuse of drugs or alcohol”. Accordingly, ERPA provides “a court procedure for family, household members, and law enforcement to obtain an [extreme risk protection] order temporarily restricting a person’s access to firearms.”

After a family member or law enforcement petitions for an ERPO, the superior court of the state of Washington must order a hearing to be held not later than 14 days from the date of the order. But the court can issue an ex parte Extreme Risk Protection Order even before a hearing.

In that hearing, the individual targeted for an ERPO has the burden of proof and must prove “by a preponderance of the evidence” that he/she “does not pose a significant danger of causing personal injury to self or others by having in his or her custody or control, purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm.”

During the hearing, the court will determine whether grounds for an Extreme Risk Protection Order exists by considering “any relevant evidence,” including

  • Any act or threat of violence;
  • “dangerous mental health issues” — whatever that means;
  • “stalking”;
  • conviction for domestic violence;
  • “abuse of controlled substances or alcohol”;
  • ownership, access to, or intent to possess firearms“;
  • “unlawful or reckless use, display, or brandishing of a firearm”;
  • recent acquisition of firearms

In other words, merely owning a firearm is “evidence” to justify an Extreme Risk Protection Order that will be used to remove or confiscate the firearm.

The duration of an ERPO is one year, but the order can be renewed. For Washington state’s one-page brochure on ERPO, click here.

Five states have passed the ERPO law: Washington, Oregon, California, Indiana and Connecticut. Texas has a modified version. At the federal level, Rep. Salud Carbajal (D-Calif.) and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) introduced legislation last May that would encourage states to adopt ERPO. (Washington Post)

Both Democrats and Republicans are receptive to ERPO, but not the National Rifle Association. In a statement, the NRA says the Extreme Risk Protection Order “strips the accused of their Second Amendment rights [and] would be issued by a judge based on the brief statement of the petitioner.” (Wikipedia)

See also:


UK criminalizes carrying of acid and other corrosive substances

In the United Kingdom, access by the general public to firearms is tightly controlled by law. Members of the public may own sporting rifles and shotguns, subject to licensing, but handguns were effectively banned after the Dunblane school massacre in 1996, the UK’s first and only school shooting. (Wikipedia)

So what do criminals use in the UK?

Knives and acid!

Last August, DCG wrote about an epidemic of acid attacks in the UK, especially in London. (See “Acid attacks in the UK now so widespread that public need training in helping victims, warn doctors“).

acid attack victim

Southampton acid attack victim in September 2015/BBC photo

In London alone, the number of attacks increased 73% in a year — from 261 incidents in 2015, to 454 in 2016. In England and Wales, there were more than 400 recorded attacks in the six months to April last year. In fact, the UK has one of the world’s highest rates of recorded acid attacks per capita. Two people have so far died as a result of acid attacks, with many more left with life-changing injuries.

At the time, there were calls for legislation to make the carrying of corrosive substances in the street illegal.

Lizzie Dearden reports for Independent, March 1, 2018, that according to new guidelines published by the Sentencing Council, an agency of the UK’s Ministry of Justice, acid is to be defined as a “highly dangerous weapon” for the first time, allowing judges to impose harsher punishments on anyone found to be carrying it in public:

  • Adults convicted of carrying a corrosive substance in public for a second time will be given a minimum six-month jail term; those under 18 years of age will be handed a four-month detention and training order.
  • Anyone convicted of threatening someone with acid or other “offensive weapons” will receive the same minimum sentences as those convicted of threatening someone with knives.
  • An offensive weapon is defined as “any article made or adapted for causing injury… Or intended for such use”; a highly dangerous weapon can include corrosive substances whose risk goes “substantially above and beyond”.

Some of the most severe assaults have been carried out using sulphuric acid, but police said dozens of different substances have been used in the UK, including some that are not covered by existing bans and voluntary sales restrictions, such as bleach and chemical irritants that can be found in a kitchen cupboard. Police have so far been powerless to identify corrosive substances that are frequently concealed in soft drinks bottles.

Major retailers have signed up to a voluntary ban on sales of dangerous products to under-18s and the Home Office has proposed separate new laws that could bring in punishments for anyone carrying corrosive substances without “a good or lawful reason” and restrict purchases.

The new Sentencing Council guidelines also target knives and other bladed weapons, ensuring people who repeatedly carry them or use them to threaten others are punished severely. New aggravating factors include the “deliberate humiliation” of victims, including filming them or circulating material on social media, and judges will take into account the defendant’s age, maturity, peer pressure or an “unstable upbringing”. Sentencing Council member Rosina Cottage said: “Too many people in our society are carrying knives. If someone has a knife on them, it only takes a moment of anger or drunkenness for it to be taken out and for others to be injured or killed.”

The new sentencing guidelines come amid concern over a series of fatal stabbings in London, including the killing of two victims within two hours last week. The deaths brought the number of fatal stabbings in London to 16 so far in 2018, with five of them teenagers.

Recorded violent crime has been rising across England and Wales. In the three months to September, there were 3,359 offenses of possession of an article with a blade or point, 1,708 of possession of an offensive weapon and 257 of threatening with a knife or offensive weapon that resulted in a caution or sentence.


Supreme Court ruled in 2008 that Second Amendment applies to individuals, not militias, and may include military weapons

On February 23, 2018, during a radio interview with Hugh Hewitt, Stanford U. political science professor and President George W. Bush’s secretary of state Condoleezza Rice said:

“I think it is time to have a conversation about what the right to bear arms means in the modern world. I don’t understand why civilians need to have access to military weapons. We wouldn’t say you can go out and buy a tank.”

By “military weapons,” Rice means the semi-automatic AR-15 rifle that confessed Parkland school shooter Nikolas Cruz allegedly used to kill 17 students and teachers on Feb. 14 in Parkland, Florida.

It is astonishing that a political science professor doesn’t seem to know that ten years ago in 2008, the Supreme Court had ruled 5-4 that:

  1. The Second Amendment’s guarantee of the “right to bear arms” pertains to individuals and not, as some insist, to militia.
  2. The Second Amendment’s prefatory clause [a “well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State“] may include citizens’ right to bear military weapons because today’s military has sophisticated weapons that government didn’t have in the 18th century. To ban individual right to such weapons would effectively render meaningless the prefatory clause’s “well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State”.

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, was the first Supreme Court case to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. Prior to the Court’s ruling, the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 had restricted District of Columbia residents from owning handguns except for those registered prior to 1975.

But the Court, in District of Columbia v. Heller, struck down the Regulations Act’s ban on handguns as unconstitutional, as well as the Act’s requirement that all firearms — including rifles and shotguns — be kept “unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock”.

The majority opinion, written by the late Justice Antonin Scalia, is considered an example of constitutional originalism — interpreting the meaning of the U.S. Constitution in accordance with the original intent of our Founders. According to the Court’s ruling:

  1. The Second Amendment protects the individual‘s right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. (Pg. 2–53 of District of Columbia v. Heller)
  2. The “people” to whom the Second Amendment right is accorded are the same “people” who enjoy First and Fourth Amendment protection. In the words of Justice Scalia: “The Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning.”
  3. The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by:
    1. Analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment’s drafting history reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. (Pg. 28–32 of District of Columbia v. Heller)
    2. Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century. (Pg. 32–47)

    But the Supreme Court also ruled that the Second Amendment right, like most rights, is not unlimited:

    (1) The right to bear arms is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

    (2) On the matter of “military weapons,” the Supreme Court ruled that:

    “We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller [United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174] said . . . that the sorts of weapons protected were those ‘in common use at the time.’ 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradi­tion of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ […] It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause [a “well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State”]. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have lim­ited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.” (pp. 58-59)

    Clearly, SCOTUS’ 2008 ruling understood the 2nd Amendment as a safeguard against a tyrannical government via citizens owning arms to defend themselves. What those arms are depend on the circumstances, specifically, arms technology. In the 18th century, those arms were rifles. But in the 21st century, handguns and rifles are insufficient against the vastly superior armament of  the government’s military. And so, in District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court left open the possibility of individual right to military-grade weapons as a means to defend against a tyrannical government.

    If we are to go by Condoleezza Rice’s assertion — “I don’t understand why civilians need to have access to military weapons” — we might just as well junk the Second Amendment entirely.

    UPDATE (Feb. 28):

    I just took an online survey, the language of which is skewed in favor of gun control. Please go take it and register your views! Click here.


Dutch police confiscate clothing/jewelry from poor-looking young people

Caroline Mortimer reports for the UK Independent, Jan. 20, 2018, that police in Rotterdam have launched a new pilot program of confiscating expensive clothing and bling from young people if they look too poor to own them.

Rotterdam is a city of more than 633,000 in the Netherlands (aka Holland), and Europe’s largest port.

Especially targeted are young men in designer clothes. The idea is to deter criminality by sending a signal that young people cannot hang onto ill-gotten gains. If it is not clear how the person paid for it, it will be confiscated.

Rotterdam police chief Frank Paauw told Dutch newspaper De Telegraaf:

“They are often young men who consider themselves untouchable. We’re going to undress them on the street. We regularly take a Rolex from a suspect. Clothes rarely. And that is especially a status symbol for young people. Some young people now walk with jackets of €1800 [US$2,248]. They do not have any income, so the question is how they get there.”

Paauw said the young men targeted often have no income and are already in debt from fines for previous convictions, and yet they wear expensive clothing, which “undermines the rule of law” and sends “a completely false signal to local residents.”

The pilot program is due to start in the Rotterdam West section of the city. Police say they will target one (unnamed) gang in particular. The confiscation of clothing and bling follows a previous pilot that targeted expensive cars driven by suspected criminals who had no income.

I wonder what Dutch police would do in cases of gangstas with diamond-studded teeth?


‘Explosive’ FISA memo: ‘Top secret’ source document details Obama NSA illegal spying/doxxing of U.S. citizens

Update: Full FISA Memo released!!!

On January 18, 2018, members of the House of Representatives were given a four-page memo, described by Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL)and journalist Sara Carter as so “shocking” and “explosive”, it could lead to the removal of senior officials in the FBI and the Department of Justice (DOJ), the end of Robert Mueller’s special counsel investigation, and even people going to jail.

See “Tell Congress to release the ‘explosive’ FISA memo that’ll put officials in jail!

House members have been blocked from discussing the memo in detail due to a waiver they signed, according to The Hill. A day later, on January 19, 65 lawmakers signed a letter calling on House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif) to publicly release the memo.

On January 20, Rep. Dave Joyce (R-Ohio) tweeted that the process to release the memo has begun, although it may take 19 or more Congressional work days.

On January 21, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) said the memo should not be released because the American people simply can’t understand it because we don’t have the classified information that provides the background for the 4-page FISA memo.

Well, the American people’s inability to understand the FISA memo is no longer a concern for Demonrat Schiff because yesterday morning, a National Security Agency (NSA) whistle blower — former NSA tech head William Binneysent InfoWars a link to a 99-page document that’s been “confirmed” by “congressional sources” to be be “a primary source of information” for the 4-page FISA memo.

The classified (“top secret”) document is a 99-page “United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court Memorandum Opinion and Order,” dated April 26, 2017. It is a blueprint of how the Obama administration and the Deep State had spied on President Trump, as well as on U.S. citizens.

Note: FISA or the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 is a federal law that establishes procedures for the U.S. government’s physical and electronic surveillance of foreign powers and domestic (U.S.) agents of foreign powers suspected of espionage or terrorism. The Act created the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) to oversee requests for surveillance warrants by federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies.

In 2016, the Obama Administration used the “Russian dossier” and its  baseless claim of a Russian-Trump collusion as the pretext for a FISA court-approved surveillance on then-candidate Donald Trump and members of the Trump campaign, including phone- and wire-taps. But as you will see in the 99-page FISC memorandum, the Obama Administration’s surveillance went way beyond Trump and his team to include innocent U.S. citizens, whose personal identities were doxxed and their personal information leaked.

Below is a summary of the main points in the 99-page FISC memorandum:

(1) The NSA, under the Obama Administration, spied on U.S. citizens through something called the “Section 702 upstream collection”:

As explained by Sean D. Carberry of FCW, Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) authorizes the NSA to monitor internet traffic without a warrant and sweep up any communications that simply mention a foreign target, regardless of the sender or receiver of the email, who may be innocent U.S. citizens. That means the NSA has been spying on and intercepting U.S. citizens’ emails.

Page 33 of the 99-page FISC memorandum states:

Information acquired by FISA electronic surveillance and physical search, which often involve targets who are United States persons and typically are directed at persons in the United States.

(2) The NSA, under the Obama Administration, went beyond FISA’s Section 702 to “unmasking” (doxxing) and leaking information about Americans, including associates of Donald Trump:

All this is in direct violation of the U.S. Constitution’s Fourth Amendment, which prohibits the government’s unreasonable searches and seizures and requires governmental searches and seizures to be conducted only upon issuance of a warrant, judicially sanctioned by probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

Below are some relevant quotes from the 99-page FISC memorandum:

Page 15 – “…NSA analysts had used US-person identifiers to query the results on Internet ‘upstream’ collection, even though NSA’s Section 702 minimization procedures prohibited such queries.”

Page 19 – “Since 2011, NSA’s minimization procedures have prohibited use of US-person identifiers to query the results of upstream Internet collection under Section 702. The Oct. 26, 2016 Notice informed the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance] Court that NSA analysts had been conducting such queries in violation of that prohibition, with much greater frequency than had previously been disclosed to the Court.

Page 21 –The government still had not ascertained the full range of systems that might have been used to conduct improper US-person queries.

Here’s former NSA official William Binney on the FISC memorandum:

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) must certify each year that the NSA is in compliance with Section 702 provisions.

In March 2017, some members of Congress threatened that they would have a hard time renewing Section 702 before its expiration at the end of 2017 unless the Trump Administration prosecutes those responsible for the leaks.

In a press release on April 28, 2017, the NSA described the changes it will make so that its Section 702 powers could be renewed:

  • The NSA said it would take steps “as soon as practicable” to delete data already collected in the illegal surveillance of U.S. citizens.
  • The NSA would halt “about” collection of U.S. citizens’ personal information. However, due to limitations of its current technology, the NSA “is unable to completely eliminate ‘about’ communications from its upstream 702 collection without also excluding some of the relevant communications directly ‘to or from’ its foreign intelligence targets.”
  • The NSA will still conduct “upstream” and “downstream” surveillance to collect emails sent to or from a foreign target located outside the U.S., for which the agency, under FISA’s Section 702, does not require a warrant.

In 2017, after an extensive review, the FISC approved changes made by the NSA “to fix the problems” before the government submitted a new application for the agency’s continued Section 702 certification.

Reactions from members of Congress (FCW):

  • Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) has long accused the government of using Section 702 as an end run around warrant requirements to collect the communications of Americans, and he has been calling on the NSA to release data on the number of Americans who have had their communications “incidentally collected.” Wyden said after the NSA’s April press release: “This transparency should be commended. To permanently protect Americans’ rights, I intend to introduce legislation banning this kind of collection in the future.”
  • Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Ca.), a ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, called Section 702 a vital collection tool and commended the NSA for self-reporting the issues and discontinuing “about” collection. Schiff said: “I will continue to expect strict compliance with the FISA Court orders and will push for Section 702’s reauthorization along with any additional reforms needed to further strengthen and institutionalize protections for privacy and transparency.”
  • Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), a ranking member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said: “This development represents the due diligence and extensive review applied across the United States Government pertaining to the Section 702 collection activities. I believe we can now look forward to Congress and, in particular, the Senate Intelligence Committee…quickly turning to the consideration and debate of this critical authority prior to its expiration set for December 31, 2017.”

Lt. Gen. Keith Alexander and Admiral Michael Rogers headed the National Security Agency under the Obama Administration. Rogers is still the NSA Director. Alexander, Rogers, NSA agents, and Barack Obama should be indicted and arrested for violating the Fourth Amendment rights of U.S. citizens.

Here’s what you can do:

(1) Tell the Department of Justice to arrest the above criminals:

(2) Tweet President Trump:

(3) Tell your Congress critter(s):

This is the message I wrote on the DOJ’s onine Contact Form (feel free to copy and paste as yours):

To Attorney General Jeff Sessions:

The 99-page April 2017 “U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court Memorandum Opinion and Order” shows that the NSA’s spying and doxxing egregiously violated the Fourth Amendment rights of U.S. citizens. Why haven’t you arrest NSA Directors Michael Rogers and Keith Alexander, NSA agents who conducted the spying and doxxing, and former President Barack Obama? Are they above the law?


H/t John Molloy and FOTM‘s greenworxx

Update (Jan. 26, 2018):

Too-stupid-to-understand-FISA-memo Americans inundate Rep. Adam Schiff’s office with ‘I’m not a Russian bot’ phone calls


Thought Crime: California prosecutes man for criticizing Islam on Facebook

The State of California is prosecuting Mark Feigin, 41, for posting insulting comments on the Islamic Center of Southern California (ICSC)’s Facebook page.

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra maintains that Feigin does not have the protection of the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment free speech right because his insults are in violation of Cal. Penal Code § 653m(b), which says:

Every person who, with intent to annoy or harass, makes repeated telephone calls or makes repeated contact by means of an electronic communication device … to another person is … guilty of a misdemeanor. Nothing in this subdivision shall apply to telephone calls or electronic contacts made in good faith or during the ordinary course and scope of business.

According to People of the State of California v. Mark Lucian Feigin, between Sept. 17 and Sept. 25, 2016, Feigin posted five insulting comments on ICSC’s Facebook page, before ICSC banned him from commenting further:

  1. “THE TERROR HIKE … SOUNDS LIKE FUN” (written in response to the ICSC’s “Sunset Hike” announcement).
  4. “Islam is dangerous – fact: the more muslim savages we allow into america – the more terror we will see -this is a fact which is undeniable.”
  5. “Filthy muslim shit has no place in western civilization.”

Becerra maintains that:

  • Feigin’s insults violated Cal. Penal Code § 653m(b) because his intent was to annoy and harass:
    • “his repeated annoying and harassing posts on the ICSC Facebook page were made with the specific intent to annoy and harass the members of the ICSC”.
    • “Rather than attempt to engage in discussion or debate, Defendant’s posts are cruel and pointedly aimed at dismissing an entire religion and those who practice it.”
  • Having violated Cal. Penal Code § 653m(b), Feigin is no longer protected by the First Amendment right of free speech — “It is unlikely that a person could engage in the proscribed conduct and still enjoy constitutional protection.”
  • Furthermore, while Feigin “can post whatever he pleases on his own Facebook page,” his First Amendment right of free speech does not extend to him going “go to another Facebook page and post whatever he likes, free of consequence for his actions.”

Becerra concludes: “Protected speech? Political speech? Defendant’s posts on the ICSC Facebook page are neither of those things.”

It’s not just California’s attorney general who’s hostile to free speech.

InfoWars points out that a 2017 survey by the Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies found that a majority of registered voters in California (46%) believed that “We have gone too far in allowing” demonstrations by white nationalists, whereas 43% still believed that “the right to demonstrate should not be restricted”.

Although, not surprisingly, Democrats (53%) and Liberals (49% of “very liberal” and 58% of liberals) are more hostile to white nationalists’ right to demonstrate, as much as 42% of Californian Republicans and 43% of Conservatives also believe that white nationalists should not be allowed to demonstrate.

And although, as expected, non-whites are more inclined to restrict white nationalists’ right to demonstrate, as many as 40% of non-Hispanic white Californians also believe that white nationalists should not have the free speech right that the Constitution accords to everyone.

H/t Reason