TOTALLY GEEKED!

Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
Post Info TOPIC: Lawmakers seek to pass laws to keep protesters from blocking traffic


On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Status: Offline
Posts: 27192
Date:
Lawmakers seek to pass laws to keep protesters from blocking traffic
Permalink  
 


State lawmakers push bills to punish protesters who block traffic

Protest against pipeline construction near Standing Rock reservation.

Protest against pipeline construction near Standing Rock reservation.  (AP)

Several states are considering bills that target protesters who block or disrupt traffic, in the wake of widespread demonstrations that choked off roads and even highways.

Some bills came about after protests spilled out onto roadways and created havoc for motorists. In Indiana, watching national protests grow large and affect traffic prompted Republican state Sen. Jim Tomes to propose a measure calling on police to disperse crowds that block traffic.

In recent days, protesters in cities across the nation gathered at or near airports to denounce President Trump’s travel restrictions and the detention of dozens of people who had a connection to one of seven countries deemed terrorist risks. When protesters blocked traffic in front of the airport in Los Angeles, police in riot gear moved to confine them to another area as motorists who were stuck missed flights.

The lawmakers behind the measures appear to be mainly Republican and say that such actions are aimed at control at a time when protests sometimes grow violent and create chaos.

Civil rights groups, however, say the bill sponsors are really seeking to undermine protesters and that they are ready to fight such attempts in court if they become law.

North Dakota state Rep. Keith Kempenich, a Republican, has proposed a bill that would relieve a motorist from punishment who accidentally hits or kills a protester who is obstructing traffic.

Kempenich, whose bill has come under fire, drafted it after the large protests over the pipeline project near Standing Rock Indian Reservation last year.

Kempenich said he was moved to address concerns from relatives who described protesters walking in front of their cars as they were driving near the demonstrations.

“There’s a First Amendment right to assemble,” Kempenich told Fox News. “But there’s also the First Amendment right of people who don’t have to pay attention to it” and should be able to pass by and not be bothered.

“When people get aggressive, then the peaceful assembly [right] protected in the First Amendment disappears,” he said.

“Protesters stood in front of their cars and flashed signs in front of them,” Kempenich said of his relatives’ experiences. “If they’d hit the gas instead of their brake, someone would have been hurt.”

Lee Rowland, a staff attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union, said that the measures are unnecessary because localities and states already have laws that forbid the intentional disruption of traffic.

“These bills are not isolated,” Rowland said. “There’s an alarming trend of bills that penalize protesters in many different ways. They’re dressed up as ‘[traffic] obstruction’ bills, or bills on public safety.”

“These bills are about one thing and one thing only – silencing dissent.”

Rowland said the ACLU and other groups are closely keeping track of the measures and are prepared to fight them in court if they become law.

States that have pending legislation seeking or increasing penalties for obstructing highways include Iowa, Indiana and Minnesota, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Other state legislatures have discussed introducing bills, according to NCSL officials. Proposed legislation in the state of Washington seeks to punish protestors who participate in “economic disruption,” which includes obstructing “the passage of any train, truck, car, ship, boat, aircraft, or other vehicle or vessel engaged in the carriage, hauling, transport, shipment, or delivery of goods, cargo, freight, or other item, in commerce.” 

Tomes created a stir when he introduced a measure that directed police to use “any means necessary” to disperse protesters who block traffic.

Critics say the bill raises “serious constitutional questions” that were likely to impinge on First Amendment rights. And they say it could be used to justify brutal tactics, similar to those used on black civil rights activists in the 1960s.

Democratic Sen. Karen Tillian challenged the wording in Tomes' bill at a state Senate Local Government Committee hearing in which she held up historical photo of protesters cracking down on protesters during civil rights demonstrations.

“The object of this measure is very simple,” Tomes said in a statement sent to Fox News. “We need to keep our streets and interstates open to commerce, traffic, motorists and emergency personnel.”

“Anyone who wants to stage or participate in a protest or demonstration is free to do so," Tomes said. "But…an ambulance needs to be able to get to an individual who is having a heart attack, and law enforcement needs to be able to respond to a call to attend to someone who needs help.”

The Associated Press contributed to this report.



__________________

LawyerLady

 

I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you. 



On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Status: Offline
Posts: 27192
Date:
Permalink  
 

I agree with these laws. Protesters have the right to peacefully protest. They do not have the right to block traffic and keep other people from getting where they are going.

__________________

LawyerLady

 

I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you. 



My dog name is, Sasha!

Status: Offline
Posts: 5883
Date:
Permalink  
 

The only exception I could see would be a block onto private property. Like the First Nations Reservations. They have the right to bar entry as it's not government land - it is owned by the Band.

__________________

 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Not today, Satan.  Not today.



On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Status: Offline
Posts: 27192
Date:
Permalink  
 

Tignanello wrote:

The only exception I could see would be a block onto private property. Like the First Nations Reservations. They have the right to bar entry as it's not government land - it is owned by the Band.


 Well, private property is a different issue, but if the owner doesn't agree - those people need to stay off their land.



__________________

LawyerLady

 

I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you. 



On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Status: Offline
Posts: 27192
Date:
Permalink  
 

So, Tig - you made me curious. The reserves in Canada are not actually "owned" by Native Americans (Indians???  I guess that's still the proper term in Canada?)

What are Indian Reserves?

An Indian Reserve is a tract of land set aside under the Indian Act and treaty agreements for the exclusive use of an Indian band. Band members possess the right to live on reserve lands, and band administrative and political structures are frequently located there. Reserve lands are not strictly “owned” by bands but are held in trust for bands by the Crown. The Indian Act grants the Minister of Indian Affairs authority over much of the activity on reserves. This overarching control is evident in the Indian Act’s definition of Indian reserves:


Reserves are held by Her Majesty for the use and benefit of the respective bands for which they were set apart, and subject to this Act and to the terms of any treaty or surrender, the Governor in Council may determine whether any purpose for which lands in a reserve are used or are to be used is for the use and benefit of the band.


The Indian Act further sets out the degree of control and authority that the Minister of Indian Affairs has over the use of reserve lands. For example, the Indian Act states that “No Indian is lawfully in possession of land in a reserve,” and that the Minister must approve any certificates of possession or similar forms of property ownership for on-reserve band members. The Indian Act further states that “the Minister may, in his discretion, withhold his approval and may authorize the Indian to occupy the land temporarily and may prescribe the conditions as to use and settlement that are to be fulfilled by the Indian before the Minister approves of the allotment.” You can read the Indian Act and its regulations over reserves online here: laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/I-5/page-4.html.



-- Edited by Lawyerlady on Monday 6th of February 2017 12:55:46 PM

__________________

LawyerLady

 

I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you. 

FNW


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 18703
Date:
Permalink  
 

You'd think there are already laws prohibiting blocking the flow of traffic.

__________________

#it's5o'clocksomewhere



My dog name is, Sasha!

Status: Offline
Posts: 5883
Date:
Permalink  
 

Yeah, however, the correct term for 'Indians' in Canada is First Nations. The Minister of Indian Affairs exists but does nothing. Reserves are self-governing, often have their own police forces and are considered private property - as they are a collection of homes & a band management office.

__________________

 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Not today, Satan.  Not today.



My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

Status: Offline
Posts: 38325
Date:
Permalink  
 

But aren't they still subject to the law of the land?

They are their own governing body but still have to answer to the higher courts.



__________________

A flock of flirting flamingos is pure, passionate, pink pandemonium-a frenetic flamingle-mangle-a discordant discotheque of delirious dancing, flamboyant feathers, and flamingo lingo.



My dog name is, Sasha!

Status: Offline
Posts: 5883
Date:
Permalink  
 

Tignanello wrote:

Yeah, however, the correct term for 'Indians' in Canada is First Nations. The Minister of Indian Affairs exists but does nothing. Reserves are self-governing, often have their own police forces and are considered private property - as they are a collection of homes & a band management office.


 Another correct term would be 'Indigenous'



__________________

 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Not today, Satan.  Not today.



Frozen Sucks!

Status: Offline
Posts: 24384
Date:
Permalink  
 

Ma has a law and the BLM group blocked traffic on the busiest highway during rush hour. The liberal judges let them off. And guess what? They now keep doing it.

__________________

Sometimes you're the windshield, and sometimes you're the bug.

Frozen is the bestest movie ever, NOT!



My dog name is, Sasha!

Status: Offline
Posts: 5883
Date:
Permalink  
 

lilyofcourse wrote:

But aren't they still subject to the law of the land?

They are their own governing body but still have to answer to the higher courts.


 Of course.  However, the law of the land also says we shouldn't murder people.  That law flexes when you shoot someone on your property.

The law says 'don't block roads to traffic' but flexes when it's your driveway.  Or else we wouldn't be able to tow people when they park in our spots.



__________________

 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Not today, Satan.  Not today.



My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

Status: Offline
Posts: 38325
Date:
Permalink  
 

There is a difference between private property and sovereignty.

__________________

A flock of flirting flamingos is pure, passionate, pink pandemonium-a frenetic flamingle-mangle-a discordant discotheque of delirious dancing, flamboyant feathers, and flamingo lingo.



My dog name is, Sasha!

Status: Offline
Posts: 5883
Date:
Permalink  
 

Lawyerlady wrote:

So, Tig - you made me curious. The reserves in Canada are not actually "owned" by Native Americans (Indians???  I guess that's still the proper term in Canada?)

What are Indian Reserves?

An Indian Reserve is a tract of land set aside under the Indian Act and treaty agreements for the exclusive use of an Indian band. Band members possess the right to live on reserve lands, and band administrative and political structures are frequently located there. Reserve lands are not strictly “owned” by bands but are held in trust for bands by the Crown. The Indian Act grants the Minister of Indian Affairs authority over much of the activity on reserves. This overarching control is evident in the Indian Act’s definition of Indian reserves:


Reserves are held by Her Majesty for the use and benefit of the respective bands for which they were set apart, and subject to this Act and to the terms of any treaty or surrender, the Governor in Council may determine whether any purpose for which lands in a reserve are used or are to be used is for the use and benefit of the band.


The Indian Act further sets out the degree of control and authority that the Minister of Indian Affairs has over the use of reserve lands. For example, the Indian Act states that “No Indian is lawfully in possession of land in a reserve,” and that the Minister must approve any certificates of possession or similar forms of property ownership for on-reserve band members. The Indian Act further states that “the Minister may, in his discretion, withhold his approval and may authorize the Indian to occupy the land temporarily and may prescribe the conditions as to use and settlement that are to be fulfilled by the Indian before the Minister approves of the allotment.” You can read the Indian Act and its regulations over reserves online here: laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/I-5/page-4.html.



-- Edited by Lawyerlady on Monday 6th of February 2017 12:55:46 PM


 Although, I guess if Her Majesty wanted to come hang out in a First Nations reserve, that would be a different story.  You'd also have to look at each individual reserve's treaty and whether or not that treaty is being honored (usually not by the government).  You would also have to look at the attention to treaty in the Truth and Reconciliation Act.



__________________

 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Not today, Satan.  Not today.



On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Status: Offline
Posts: 27192
Date:
Permalink  
 

Tignanello wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:

But aren't they still subject to the law of the land?

They are their own governing body but still have to answer to the higher courts.


 Of course.  However, the law of the land also says we shouldn't murder people.  That law flexes when you shoot someone on your property.

The law says 'don't block roads to traffic' but flexes when it's your driveway.  Or else we wouldn't be able to tow people when they park in our spots.


 It's not "traffic" in a private driveway.  But you can bet if protesters were blocking access to someone's property - that is against the law as well.  You can tow people from your private property because it's called "trespass".  The protesters either have to abide by the laws on public property or they have to respect people's property rights on private property.  There is absolutely no place except your own property that you get to interfere with other people's rights without consequence. 



__________________

LawyerLady

 

I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you. 



On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Status: Offline
Posts: 27192
Date:
Permalink  
 

And defense of one's self or property does not meet the definition of "murder". "Murder" is a legal term.

__________________

LawyerLady

 

I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you. 



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 25897
Date:
Permalink  
 

That's all well and good to make another law but Why? They didn't bother to arrest anyone at Berkley for setting things on fire, smashing windows and beating people up. So, what good are laws that aren't enforced?

__________________

https://politicsandstuff.proboards.com/



Frozen Sucks!

Status: Offline
Posts: 24384
Date:
Permalink  
 

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:

That's all well and good to make another law but Why? They didn't bother to arrest anyone at Berkley for setting things on fire, smashing windows and beating people up. So, what good are laws that aren't enforced?


 Nope, no new laws required. Just enforce the one on the books. Makes me laugh at the the people belly aching about the executive order Trump has done. He has not used an EO to establish new law, only to enforce those on the books, as opposed to O who enacted laws though executive order.



-- Edited by I know what to do_sometimes on Monday 6th of February 2017 07:48:00 PM

__________________

Sometimes you're the windshield, and sometimes you're the bug.

Frozen is the bestest movie ever, NOT!



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 1849
Date:
Permalink  
 

FNW wrote:

You'd think there are already laws prohibiting blocking the flow of traffic.


 Yeah. I thought this was already illegal. 



__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 3029
Date:
Permalink  
 

As with Gun Laws, all they really need to do is enforce the laws that already exist.

And "peaceful protest" doesn't include illegally blocking highways.

__________________
Page 1 of 1  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.



Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse
Powered by ActiveBoard