Armed protesters stalk peaceful Muslims at Texas mosque: We want to show force

[Bone]

@John_Mace

OK, that’s pretty good. It’s unclear if the guy was actually convicted of a crime (the article only says he was charged), but we’re getting pretty close. I did a little searching on open carry in TX, and maybe the issue is that open carry is allowed for handguns, not for rifles.

Not quite. A lot of the open carry of rifles occurred in Texas recently because the law was actually opposite what you state. Open carry of pistols was illegal but the law was silent on rifles. Many thought this didn’t make sense and tried to change the law. A sunset of these folks tried to demonstrate the inconsistency of this by OCing rifles.

I am not sure on the status of the law currently. I personally think that OCing rifles is a dick move in most situations.

[John_Mace]

@Bone

Not quite. A lot of the open carry of rifles occurred in Texas recently because the law was actually opposite what you state. Open carry of pistols was illegal but the law was silent on rifles. Many thought this didn’t make sense and tried to change the law. A sunset of these folks tried to demonstrate the inconsistency of this by OCing rifles.

I am not sure on the status of the law currently. I personally think that OCing rifles is a dick move in most situations.

It’s definitely a lot more complicated than most of here seem to think. The OP linked to ThinkPRogress, which didn’t give the whole story, but if you go to the source, linked to in that TP blurb, you’ll see that:

“They’re mostly for self-defense or protection,” Wright said, eyeing his 12-gauge. “But I’m not going to lie. We do want to show force. … It would be ridiculous to protest Islam without defending ourselves.”

That sounded a bit ridiculous to David Palmer, a City Council member who wandered down to the protest in sweatpants after a concerned mosque member told him about it.

“Does it look like there’s any threat here? Nobody’s even close to them,” Palmer said, standing in a parking lot where police cars nearly outnumbered the four or five mosque members who watched the spectacle.

“My initial impression was they were using them for intimidation,” Palmer said. “I doubt that they’d be happy if some of the Muslim churchgoers here showed up at their Christian church, their Baptist church, their Methodist church tomorrow morning with rifles slung over their shoulders.”

Palmer said the police chief personally warned mosque leaders about the rally. They in turn urged their worshippers to steer clear of the group, which calls itself the Bureau of American Islamic Relations and had recycled some of the signs it took to a Richardson mosque last month, on a national day of protest against Islam.

The police were aware of the protest, were on site during the protest, and yet made no arrests.

[Muffin]

When people use guns for intimidation, it’s time to either enforce the law, or to change the law and then enforce it. The sooner you get rid of gun rights, the sooner you will develop into a civilized society equal to the other first world nations.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Happy_Fun_Ball

I’m not sure this is true but do not have the legal expertise to know. The Klan did a lot of things to intimidate African Americans (see burning crosses) and they were found to be illegal. I don’t know where the line is.

Cross burning qua cross burning is not illegal (or at least cannot constitutionally be prohibited). The law must require the intent to intimidate. Personally, I have very little doubt that the protestors’ intent is to intimidate; the leader openly admits it’s a “show of force,” and other than intimidation I cannot think of any other use of a show of force.

@John_Mace

The police were aware of the protest, were on site during the protest, and yet made no arrests.

That might just mean the police don’t care. The mayor of the city is openly hostile to Muslims, or at least openly stupid.

[Happy_Fun_Ball]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Cross burning qua cross burning is not illegal (or at least cannot constitutionally be prohibited). The law must require the intent to intimidate. Personally, I have very little doubt that the protestors’ intent is to intimidate; the leader openly admits it’s a “show of force,” and other than intimidation I cannot think of any other use of a show of force. <snip>

We already did this…

@John_Mace

They were not “found to be illegal”. The laws on the books that made certain instances of flag burning illegal were found to be constitutional. Unless there is a Texas law that forbids open carry during a protest, then these guys are not violating any laws.

@Happy_Fun_Ball

Yes, John, this is what I meant when I posted that earlier; the laws that banned certain forms of intimidating expression were found to be constitution by SCOTUS. Let me be a bit clearer in what I was trying to say: there is no guaranteed right to intimidating speech and if speech or a protest can be construed as a “true threat” then that action can be prosecuted under any number of laws. For the purpose of what a “true threat” is, well that is a bit murkier. The 5th circuit stated in Porter v. Ascension School District that

Speech is a true threat and therefore unprotected if an objectively reasonable person would interpret the speech as a serious expression of an intent to cause a present or future harm. The protected status of the threatening speech is not determined by whether the speaker had the subjective intent to carry out the threat; rather, to lose the protection of the First Amendment and be lawfully punished, the threat must be intentionally or knowingly communicated to either the object of the threat or a third person.

It is not clear to me that these bigots parading around with their guns and proclaiming proudly that they want to “show force” is an intentional communication of a threat to a third party, but your blanket statement that they are not breaking any laws is questionable at best.

That is the last time I am going to just post off the cuff from my phone.

[John_Mace]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

That might just mean the police don’t care.

That is certainly a possibility.

[Ramira]

In a United states where Laila Lalami, who can not be more westernized, is moved to write:

The other day, my daughter said to me, “I want to be president.” … My daughter is 12. … “I’d vote for you,” I told her. And then I looked away, because I didn’t have the heart to tell her that half the people in this country — in her country — say they would not vote for a Muslim presidential candidate. I worry about her growing up in a place where some of the people who are seeking the highest office in the land cannot make a simple distinction between Islam and ISIS, between Muslim and terrorist. Ben Carson has said he “would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation.”… But what will happen when she comes of age and starts to realize that her life, like mine, is constantly under question? How do you explain to a child that she is not wanted in her own country? I have not yet had the courage to do that. My daughter has never heard of the gray zone, though she has lived in it her entire life. …

I think making a question about the intentions or excuses about supposed free speech of these people is very special.

[Ramira]

@octopus

So black, white, Asian, Arab, Persian Muslims all look alike to me? I’m not Mr Magoo. I think you might be projecting a bit.

Perhaps no but to the special ones walking with guns, it is not very much comfort to the Sikhs and the other ‘arab’ looking ones who have been killed by them that some few of their thinking types can make a difference.

[Monty]

And, of course, this isn’t harassment or intimidation of any sort whatsoever, huh? :rolleyes:

[BrainGlutton]

@Monty

And, of course, this isn’t harassment or intimidation of any sort whatsoever, huh? :rolleyes:

Well, it wouldn’t be, if the targets were such subhuman savages as Mormons, but . . .

[Northern_Piper]

@Biffy_the_Elephant_Shrew

Bureau of American Islamic Relations

Oh Jesus, don’t tell me. They’re “loaded for BAIR.”

More likely it’s intended as a riposte to CAIR: Council on American-Islamic Relations

[Bricker]

@Ethilrist

Oh…

The town of Irving gained notoriety earlier this year when police arrested a Muslim school boy who had made a clock at home and brought it to school, accusing him of making a “hoax bomb.”

THOSE guys.

Those guys, like Richard Dawkins?

Don’t call him “clock boy” since he never made a clock. Hoax Boy, having hoaxed his way into the White House, now wants $15M in addition!

[John_Mace]

@Bricker

Those guys, like Richard Dawkins?

It’s one thing to point out that there is little or no technical achievement here, but I don’t think Dawkins was suggesting that the boy be arrested. That’s the key issue being noted.

[elucidator]

Well, that’s OK for you, John, being a non-partisan centrist, and all. But we on the left are required to give respectful and sympathetic attention to Mr. Dawkins, because he is an atheist. Myself, I’m inclined to dislike the man, but the Central Committee has issued its ruling, and to hear is to obey.

[Monty]

@elucidator

Well, that’s OK for you, John, being a non-partisan centrist, and all. But we on the left are required to give respectful and sympathetic attention to Mr. Dawkins, because he is an atheist. Myself, I’m inclined to dislike the man, but the Central Committee has issued its ruling, and to hear is to obey.

Central committee? I thought you said you were on the left.

[Slow_Moving_Vehicle]

@Monty

Central committee? I thought you said you were on the left.

The Central Committee of the Left is always right.

Hope that clarifies things.