ACLU takes on a 2a case

I'm confused here, whether it's firearms or a loud band playing at a party and there is a noise ordinance violation when does that become disturbing the peace? What is the legal deffinition for "disturbing the peace"? More like "disturbing the police" and does it vary from state to state and doesn't it just pertain to public property and not private property?
 
technically it's 1a case

That's my take on it.

Firearms just happen to be incidental to the case.

It could just have easily been a leaf blower, firecrackers or loud music.



The ACLU has taken a number of 'gun' cases on something other than Second Amendment grounds. There have been at least two alienage cases that they took and won on 14A grounds.

I know of at least one case where they argued in favor of some kid that wore an NRA tshirt to school and they demanded that he remove it.

The ACLU won that one.
 
I wonder if we can get the ACLU to get rid of the collective right nonsense now that Supreme Court has ruled it is an individual right.
 
I think it could be either since the cop seized the guns. The case is based on his postings so I was mistaken.
 
I knew I didn't see this out my window..

flying-pigs.jpg
 
However not all of the state level ACLU groups are as anti-gun, it varies from state to state
There was some gun legislation proposed in Maine a year or two ago, I forgot just what it was about, and I was surprised to see the ACLU weighing in on it. Turned out their only concern was about "overincarceration," meaning someone being jailed for a violation of whatever the law would have been. In their presentation before the legislative committee, they took the opportunity to parrot the "collective right/National Guard" horse$4¡† of the national organization.

"With friends like that . . . " [rolleyes]

And the former executive director of the Maine chapter is running for the U.S. Senate. Yikes. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shenna_Bellows>
 
Last edited:
Can't imagine what that cop was thinking. Assuming the guy was doing something wrong (and I don't think he was), wouldn't a simple citation be called for? Why jump to confiscation and arrest?
 
The ACLU might be a bit concerned with the 'disturbing the peace' absurd arrest but I think the case here and the ACLU's involvement is with the order for the guy to remove all the information from facebook, twitter, etc. That is the is limiting his speech unconstitutionally and that is a horrible decision from some peon local judge. I hope this guy can sue the cop personally for the illegal arrest.

- - - Updated - - -

Can't imagine what that cop was thinking. Assuming the guy was doing something wrong (and I don't think he was), wouldn't a simple citation be called for? Why jump to confiscation and arrest?

Because he didn't bow to the cops authority. Cops with attitude like this get butt hurt.
 
"A government order prohibiting criticism of government is the worst kind of censorship" - yes, a 1A issue

And a government decision prohibiting keeping arms to protect oneself against oppressive government is the worst kind of tyranny. - 2A issue

Maybe ACLU will get some balls and help out in CT, CA, MA, etc.
 
This is not at all what this case is about. The ACLU only got involved when the court issued the gag order regarding the (probably illegal) activities of the police officer.

From the ACLU press release,

A government order prohibiting criticism of government is the worst kind of censorship,” explains Tony Rothert, legal director of the ACLU of Missouri.

“Gun advocates who fear the government is infringing on the Second Amendment have every right to broadcast their beliefs,” says Jeffrey A. Mittman, the ACLU of Missouri’s executive director. “The ACLU will always push back against government censorship.”

The headline at the Daily Sheeple website is an example of lazy reporting or maybe hyping up a story to get more interest. As is their conclusion that Second Amendment Rights are being increasingly infringed. That's not for lack of trying by the anti gun forces, it's because gun owners aren't taking those efforts lying down.



so if I have my stereo playing too loudly, the cops can come and force me to give them the stereo or face arrest?

I think not.

This is a no brainer in any court, I would think.
 
Can't imagine what that cop was thinking. Assuming the guy was doing something wrong (and I don't think he was), wouldn't a simple citation be called for? Why jump to confiscation and arrest?

I'm probably wrong, but I always thought that a noise complaint was a civil action. If the neighbors obtain an order prohibiting the noise, and you willfully violate that order, then I could see it leading to an arrest.

so if I have my stereo playing too loudly, the cops can come and force me to give them the stereo or face arrest?

I think not.

This is a no brainer in any court, I would think.

That was my thought as well. If you're revving the engine of an unmuffled car, motorcycle, or truck in your yard, do they confiscate those as well? What happens if you're no longer making any noise when the cops show up? Do they just take the word of the neighbor and confiscate the private property that was allegedly making the noise?
 
Several years back the Board of Selectmen in Milton passed an ordinance forbidding lawn signs by political candidates. They tried to claim that it wasn't a First Amendment issue, but a matter of property values. You can imagine how that went.

Good link to a Volokh Conspiracy post in there too: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...put-a-video-of-me-online-im-a-police-officer/

Our local Town Council once tried to pass an ordinance forbidding the criticizing of Councilors once, but the Town lawyer suggested they not... Thin-skinned wussies.
 
You'd think an organization devoted to protecting individual freedoms would at least be sympathetic to individuals ability to own firearms, regardless of how they "interpret" the constitution...

I think generally they are a good organization to have around, but to me their "cause" is tarnished by partisan beliefs.

Mike
 
I'm probably wrong, but I always thought that a noise complaint was a civil action. If the neighbors obtain an order prohibiting the noise, and you willfully violate that order, then I could see it leading to an arrest.



That was my thought as well. If you're revving the engine of an unmuffled car, motorcycle, or truck in your yard, do they confiscate those as well? What happens if you're no longer making any noise when the cops show up? Do they just take the word of the neighbor and confiscate the private property that was allegedly making the noise?

Public order offenses like disorderly conduct and disturbing the peace have been around for a long time; the statutes in Massachusetts for these offenses found at MGL c. 272, s. 53 was originally put on the books in 1699.

Do they get misused as contempt of cop charges? Sure, probably. But they also serve as an effective tool to prevent disturbances from continuing or getting worse. Generally disorderly would be charged against someone using fighting words (which have not protection is 1A jurisprudence) outside a bar, and disturbing would be used for the guy whose neighbors have launched repeated complaints about his 2 AM house party.

Regardless, you don't get to seize the property with the possible exception of seizure for evidentiary purposes on AFTER a party is arrested. In any event, this case here appears to me to be a violation of the 1A and abuse of the officer's discretion.
 
Back
Top Bottom