"Read all about it"

Posts Tagged ‘rights’

Bradley County Sherrif Jim Ruth vows to protect our 2nd Amendment rights

In Uncategorized on February 7, 2013 at 9:21 AM

Local sheriffs vow to oppose Obama’s gun control

BCN insert- More gun control laws will not make us safer. Stricter or tightened registration will not solve anything. The government knowing more about you and all your information placed in a database somewhere in DC will not make us safer. Guns don’t kill people, the person pulling the trigger kills people. Criminals with the intent to harm others will more than likely not register a gun or be concerned whether it is registered or not.

Let’s support Sherrif Ruth as he makes a stand against more gun control laws that supress your second amendment rights!

Link to video: http://www.wrcbtv.com/story/20962631/area-sheriffs-speak-out-on-gun-rights?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&autoStart=true&topVideoCatNo=default&clipId=8324119

Posted: Feb 04, 2013 8:58 PM EST
Updated: Feb 04, 2013 10:28 PM EST
By Matt Barbour, Reporter – email

(WRCB) — As President Obama spent part of his day pitching his anti-gun violence agenda in Minnesota, more law enforcement agencies across the country are vowing to uphold the right to bear arms.

Two sheriffs in the Tennessee Valley are speaking out on gun rights.

“I would hope that the legislature at the federal level would not mess with second amendment rights,” says Hamilton County Sheriff Jim Hammond.

It is a stance that Sheriff Hammond and other sheriffs across the country are taking.

“Sheriffs are constitutional officers and we take very seriously protecting the rights of citizens, when it comes, especially this case, to their second amendment rights.”

Hammond says the Tennessee Sheriffs’ Association will soon follow suit behind others across the country, including Georgia’s, which has a statement posted on its website.

It reads in part, “The sheriffs will aggressively oppose federal or state legislation which infringes upon law abiding citizens’ right to bear arms.”

This comes as President Obama is rallying for a ban on assault weapons and universal background checks.

“It’s not because of what he’s doing, it’s because I want to let them know how I would stand as a sheriff,” says Hammond.

Just two weeks ago, the Bradley County Commission passed a resolution, vowing support of existing state and federal rights to bear arms.

Sheriff Jim Ruth wrote a letter publicly supporting it, saying he took an oath to support the constitution and it is his solemn obligation to support the resolution.

“I hope we can come together with some realistic legislation to make society safer and at the same time not to pick on things that have no effect,” says Commissioner J. Adam Lowe.

Lowe proposed the resolution.

He says a ban is not the answer.

“When we look at violent crime rates with countries with bans, we see that it doesn’t reduce violent crime.”

He is open to laws that make it tougher for guns to end up in a criminals’ hands.

“Background checks are a reasonable expectation to screen those who are law abiding. I think it gives a lot of gun dealers, whom are many friends of mine, an opportunity to know more about a person before they sell them a weapon,” says Lowe.

Bottom line, there is a call for open dialogue when it comes to gun rights.

“I just think we’ve got to have cool heads in making a decision, we can’t be rushing into something with a knee-jerk reaction,” says Hammond.

Both Hammond and Lowe say when it comes to school safety, they are big advocates of supporting the school resource officer program.

But Hammond says it all depends on what tax payers are willing to pay.

He says if he were to put an SRO in every Hamilton County school, his budget would increase by $6 million.

Supreme Court Justices Blast EPA For Thwarting Couple From Building On Protected Wetlands

In Uncategorized on January 11, 2012 at 9:33 AM

Thank God there are still a few conservative judges rendering bold decisions in America. Judge Antoine Scalia ruled in a case recently that the EPA cannot keep a couple from building a house on their own land because of established “wetlands.”

This family, the Sacketts, attempting to live out the American Dream, work hard, buy a piece of land then build a nice house on that private property which they own!

Well that dream was almost foiled by the EPA stepping in and saying NO you can’t build on that piece of property you bought because it has had some flooding problems in the past! That dirt you have piled up there where you were going to build your house must be removed so the water can flow naturally!

Bradley County is doing a very expensive and expansive “flood plain study” real soon! After this study is done with I’m sure EPA and DOT oversight, definite flood plains will be established! Doesn’t seem so bad does it? After all we need to know where it is flooding, right? Well the flood plains are going to be places you cannot build upon! These will be wetlands, soon to be inhabitable! Does this not send any “red alerts” out? Does this seem alarming to anyone? Gaurantee you it will happen! And the flood plain can be as big and broad as any of our paid federal stooges want it to be! So if they want a piece of land they take it! They make it a wetland, unbuildable! Unbelievable!

Bradley County and Cleveland your mayors x 2 are giving us away to federal regulators! They both have moved toward this goal of grabbing your land with obviously no consequences for their actions!

I am in shock at the lack of forethought and inactivity among our political leaders that are not trying to stop this madness. The thoughts of someone trying to claim your private property with federal regulations should be enough to mount a full court press against the EPA, but I get nothing! No reaction whatsoever, just silence while they pile on more and more strangulating regulations almost everyday!

These local guys love the little bit of money they get in federal grants! They think this is a good thing! To spend your money which we do not have to spend in a very down economy!

Read below the story of the Sacketts and the struggles they face just because they want to build a house on their property! When you are done reading, go back and place your name there in place of the Sacketts with your own name!

Supreme Court Justices Blast EPA For Thwarting Couple From Building On Protected Wetlands
by AP | Jan. 9, 2012, 4:55 PM | 4,596
WASHINGTON (AP) — Several conservative members of the Supreme Court criticized the Environmental Protection Agency on Monday for heavy-handed enforcement of rules affecting homeowners after the government told an Idaho couple they can’t challenge an order declaring their future home site a “protected wetlands.”
Justice Antonin Scalia assailed the “high-handedness” of the environmental agency when dealing with private property, and Justice Samuel Alito described some of the EPA’s actions as “outrageous,” arguing that most people would say “this kind of thing can’t happen in the United States.”
The EPA said that Mike and Chantell Sackett illegally filled in most of their 0.63-acre lot with dirt and rocks in preparation for building a home. The agency said the property is a wetlands that cannot be disturbed without a permit. The Sacketts had none.
The couple, who attended the Supreme Court arguments, said they had no reason to suspect there were wetlands on their property. They paid $23,000 for their property in 2005 and decided two years later to build a three-bedroom home. Workers spent three days filling in just under a half-acre of land.
Three EPA officials showed up, said they believed the land was wetlands, asked for a permit and told the workers to stop. Six months later, the EPA sent the order that triggered the court case. The Sacketts wanted to challenge that order, but lower courts have said that they cannot.
The EPA issues nearly 3,000 administrative compliance orders a year that call on alleged violators of environmental laws to stop what they’re doing and repair the harm they’ve caused. Major business groups, homebuilders, road builders and agricultural interests all have joined the Sacketts in urging the court to make it easier to contest EPA compliance orders issued under several environmental laws.
Justice Anthony Kennedy wondered how far the Supreme Court should go in a ruling, noting that government agencies often threaten citations when people don’t comply with the law. “Health inspectors go into restaurants all the time and say: ‘Unless you fix this, I’m going to give you a citation.’ Fire inspectors, the same thing,” he said.
The Sacketts’ lawyer, Damien M. Schiff, argued that they weren’t trying to take away EPA’s power. Environmental groups say a purpose of the orders is to make it easier to negotiate a resolution without a protracted legal fight.
“Let EPA administer the act and issue compliance orders,” Schiff said. “But let’s also give homeowners a fair shake, too. Let them have their day in court to contest what the agency has done.”
Alito leveled some of the strongest criticism against the EPA, noting that the Sacketts had to wait until the EPA sued them to even challenge the idea that there were wetlands on their property.
“You think maybe there is a little drainage problem in part of your lot, so you start to build the house and then you get an order from the EPA which says: ‘You have filled in wetlands, so you can’t build your house; remove the fill, put in all kinds of plants; and now you have to let us on your premises whenever we want to,'” Alito said. “You have to turn over to us all sorts of documents, and for every day that you don’t do all this you are accumulating a potential fine of $75,000. And by the way, there is no way you can go to court to challenge our determination that this is a wetlands until such time as we choose to sue you.”
Chief Justice John Roberts said that because of the potential fines, few people are going to challenge the EPA’s determinations.
“Because of the administrative compliance order, you’re really never going to be put to the test, because most land owners aren’t going to say, ‘I’m going to risk the $37,000 a day,” Roberts said. “All EPA has to do is make whatever finding it wants, and realize that in 99 percent of the cases, it’s never going to be put to the test.”
The EPA’s normal procedure is to contact the homeowner before issuing a compliance order, Justice Department lawyer Malcolm Stewart said. A wetlands biologist has also confirmed to The Associated Press that he advised the Sacketts in May 2007 that their property was a wetlands and that there were wetlands on three sides of their land. The Sacketts say that in 2010, other wetlands consultants examined their land and concluded that the first one was wrong.
If the Sacketts “had wanted a judicial resolution of the coverage question without subjecting themselves to potential penalties, they could have filed a permit application before discharging, they could have gotten review there. All we’re saying is they can’t discharge fill, wait to see whether EPA notices, and then insist upon immediate judicial review if EPA notices and objects,” Stewart said.

United Nations Envoy: U.S. Isn’t Protecting Occupy Protesters’ Rights

In Government on December 22, 2011 at 10:00 AM

On the eve of Chattanooga Police reportedly going to be removing the occupiers from a park in downtown Chattanooga I find this article! The United Nations condemning the United States for not doing enough to protect the rights of these squatting protesters who have chosen to live downtown and expose residents and patrons to God only knows what the disease of the week is and break the law!

I have been to many protests, before many of them were out of high school! I have never attended an all night protest! Never have I left the land littered with my waste! Never have I broken the law and gone outside of the city ordinance I have been advised to follow! Never have I pushed this, why, because of a respect for the law! When my time was up, I packed my gear, cleaned my area and went home “within the law!” When and if I had chosen to protest outside of the law, my right to do so would end and I would be arrested!

Protesting within the law is their choice! To live downtown is another thing! These protesters definitely have the right to petition their government, to address any local option they choose, hold as many signs up as they want, but to pitch a tent and stay weeks on end is another thing! Living in downtown in squalor is against the law! The same law that every one else calls on if someone breaks into your house, molests a child or robs you in the street! The law is there for a reason! Not only to protect you, but to protect other law abiding citizens around you!0

Just as I can’t pull my camper up downtown and bring the kids with me and go see all the sights they cannot be residence either! City ordinances protect the people, like them or not they are there to protect the rest of the law abiding citizens.

What good are these laws if they are only going to allow them to flex freely depending on what day it is!

When it is time for Riverbend, the family and I occasionally rent a motel for a night and go to the event and return to our sometimes 200 dollar a night motel (which is not an everyday expense, believe me) but we consider this part of our summer vacation, instead of spending that money this year, I’m going to just pull my camper up somewhere near the aquarium and stay all week, for free! Possibility pull out the grill, slap on a few steaks, roast some marshmallows, shout out “down with big government”, “lower taxes” and have my own little occupy movement! Its the same thing right? Well, of course I want be defacating on police cars, smoking dope, raping others, spreading disease and I will take a bath! Just me and the famy on a peaceful, relaxing vacation in the big city!

If I am asked to leave will my rights be violated, what if they pull a taser out and threaten to tear gas me, will the United Nations say my rights were violated? I highly doubt it? But then again, by then with the help of our Mayors and elected officials, along with the DOT, HUD and the ever omnipresent EPA they may have by then have full control of our “Federal State”, whatever that is? A federal state? That may be our future?

The United Nations needs to stay out of the affairs of anything within the United States, the Federal government should say, stay away, the states should say to the federal government stay out and he citizens should speak up and say to all of y’all stay out of my business!

We have the most powerful nation in the world because we have capitalism, free trade, the right to petition our government via the Constitution, the Constitution! All these things make us great and free! When we start focusing on what part of the law or the Constitution we can ignore or what part of the law we can push aside then we start to loosen the fibers that keeps us strong!

The United Nations needs to go do what “they do well”, start wars, create a disaster, then petition the states and the world for more money to do their dirty work! Go away, United Nations, you have no right in a free society! Just go away!

U.N. Envoy: U.S. Isn’t Protecting Occupy Protesters’ Rights
Dan Froomkin | Dec 2, 2011 2:00 PM EST

WASHINGTON — The United Nations envoy for freedom of expression is drafting an official communication to the U.S. government demanding to know why federal officials are not protecting the rights of Occupy demonstrators whose protests are being disbanded — sometimes violently — by local authorities.
Frank La Rue, who serves as the U.N. “special rapporteur” for the protection of free expression, told HuffPost in an interview that the crackdowns against Occupy protesters appear to be violating their human and constitutional rights.
“I believe in city ordinances and I believe in maintaining urban order,” he said Thursday. “But on the other hand I also believe that the state — in this case the federal state — has an obligation to protect and promote human rights.”
“If I were going to pit a city ordinance against human rights, I would always take human rights,” he continued.
La Rue, a longtime Guatemalan human rights activist who has held his U.N. post for three years, said it’s clear to him that the protesters have a right to occupy public spaces “as long as that doesn’t severely affect the rights of others.”
In moments of crisis, governments often default to a forceful response instead of a dialogue, he said — but that’s a mistake.
“Citizens have the right to dissent with the authorities, and there’s no need to use public force to silence that dissension,” he said.
“One of the principles is proportionality,” La Rue said. “The use of police force is legitimate to maintain public order — but there has to be a danger of real harm, a clear and present danger. And second, there has to be a proportionality of the force employed to prevent a real danger.”
And history suggests that harsh tactics against social movements don’t work anyway, he said. In Occupy’s case, he said, “disbanding them by force won’t change that attitude of indignation.”
Occupy encampments across the country have been forcibly removed by police in full riot gear, and some protesters have been badly injured as a result of aggressive police tactics.
New York police staged a night raid on the original Occupy Wall Street encampment in mid-November, evicting sleeping demonstrators and confiscating vast amounts of property.
The Oakland Police Department fired tear gas, smoke grenades and bean-bag rounds at demonstrators there in late October, seriously injuring one Iraq War veteran at the Occupy site.
Earlier this week, Philadelphia and Los Angeles police stormed the encampments in their cities in the middle of the night, evicting and arresting hundreds of protesters.
Protesters at University of California, Davis were pepper sprayed by a campus police officer in November while participating in a sit-in, and in September an officer in New York pepper sprayed protesters who were legally standing on the sidewalk.
“We’re seeing widespread violations of fundamental First Amendment and Fourth Amendment rights,” said Mara Verheyden-Hilliard, co-chair of a National Lawyers Guild committee, which has sent hundreds of volunteers to provide legal representation to Occupations across the nation.
“The demonstrations are treated as if they’re presumptively criminal,” she said. “Instead of looking at free speech activity as an honored and cherished right that should be supported and facilitated, the reaction of local authorities and police is very frequently to look at it as a crime scene.”
What they should do, Verheyden-Hilliard said, is make it their mission to allow the activity to continue.
Using the same lens placed on the Occupy movement to look at, say, the protest in Egypt, Verheyden-Hilliard said, observers would have focused on such issues as “Did the people in Tahrir Square have a permit?”
La Rue said the protesters are raising and addressing a fundamental issue. “There is legitimate reason to be indignant and angry about a crisis that was originated by greed and the personal interests of certain sectors,” he said. That’s especially the case when the bankers “still earn very hefty salaries and common folks are losing their homes.”
“In this case, the demonstrations are going to the center of the issue,” he said. “These demonstrations are exactly challenging the basis of the debate.”
Indeed, commentators such as Robert Scheer have argued that the Occupy movement’s citizen action has a particular justification, based on the government’s abject failure to hold banks accountable.
La Rue said he sees parallels between Occupy and the Arab Spring pro-democracy protests. In both cases, for instance, “you have high level of education for young people, but no opportunities.”
La Rue said he is in the process of writing what he called “an official communication” to the U.S. government “to ask what exactly is the position of the federal government in regards to understanding the human rights and constitutional rights vis-a-vis the use of local police and local authorities to disband peaceful demonstrations.”
Although the letter will not carry any legal authority, it reflects how the violent suppression of dissent threatens to damage the U.S.’s international reputation.
“I think it’s a dangerous spot in the sense of a precedent,” La Rue said, expressing concern that the United States risks losing its credibility as a model democracy, particularly if the excessive use of force against peaceful protests continues.
New York Civil Liberties Union Executive Director Donna Lieberman welcomed the international scrutiny.
“We live in a much smaller, connected world than we ever did before, and just as Americans watch what goes on in Tahrir Square and in Syria, the whole world is watching us, too — and that’s a good thing,” Lieberman said.
“We’re kind of confident that we’re living in the greatest democracy in the world, but when the international human rights world criticizes an American police officer for pepper spraying students who are sitting down, it rightly give us pause.”
* * * * *
Dan Froomkin is senior Washington correspondent for The Huffington Post. You can send him an email, bookmark his page, subscribe to his RSS feed, follow him on Twitter, friend him on Facebook, and/or become a fan and get email alerts when he writes.

%d bloggers like this: