We need more judges like this one!
We need more judges that believe the constitution is in place for our protection
What is wrong with that judge? What a nutcase...
He's obviously just a conspiracy-theorist "cop-basher". How dare he condemn criminal activities of a sworn officer. And who does he think he is accepting evidence in his court that proves collusion with other officers and administrators? Doesn't he know that if you point such actions out, or attempt to hold them responsible, that's just "cop bashing"? The only reason ANYONE would ever point out such things is because they have some sort of vendetta against law enforcement.
And what's with this wacky First Amendment activism from the bench? Everyone knows that "free speech" doesn't apply to unpopular ideas, or speech that makes people uncomfortable, or is contrary to the general consensus.
Good thing this Judge isn't on an Internet forum. He's have his court "locked" after a ruling like this...
<burning sarcasm OFF>
It is our cause to dispel the foggy thinking which avoids hard decisions in the delusion that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolve itself into a world of harmony, if we just don't rock the boat or irritate the forces of aggression—and this is hogwash."
--Barry Goldwater, 1964
Sarcasm aside, it is actually very 'weird' for a Judge to uphold this. They're usually every bit in collusion with the LEOs they drink with. I have a feeling he may not be a Judge for long. Going along with the Us vs Them mentality of the LEO gangs is usually required if you want to live. They have lots of guns and other stuff they aren't supposed to have...
Of course, telling it like it is makes me a cop basher, too...
You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC
Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.
Good timing for a test, as the FBI hands out the answers before hand, and states cannot have less of a standard than the big boys.
No wonder they can't connect the dots, they got the wrong cheat-sheet memo.
""The court finds a tsunami, a maelstrom, an avalanche, of direct uncontroverted evidence in Sheriff Weber's own testimony to conclude beyond all doubt that he unquestionably violated the First Amendment rights of ... Paul Dorr," Bennett wrote in the decision."
Ha hahahahaha ha ha haha hahahaaaa!
"U.S. District Judge Mark Bennett also ordered Weber to successfully complete a court-approved course on the U.S. Constitution within five months."
double Ha hahahahaha ha ha haha hahahaaaa!
(quoted from the article linked above... credit where due... don't want any Copyright issues)
While I agree with the ruling, and Mr Dorr's anti-abortion stance, I have to wonder if there are liability issues here.If the person having issuing authority suspects a person is mentally unstable through actual interaction with them, wouldn't it be acceptible if a permit was denied? At least until an impartial body examined the applicant, or as in this case a judge made the decision. If the sheriff had hacked off on the paperwork and issued a permit, and Mr Dorr eventually commited murder against an abortionist, would the sheriff be at fault? If it happens now will the judge be liable? In our society now over run with unscrupulous litigators, I just have to wonder who's liable legally now that it seems like everyone but an offender is blamed for his own actions.
I'm glad Mr Dorr got his permit, however I still don't believe he should have to get one in the first place. We either have a right, or a priviledge. The abortionists in Iowa might want to start exersizing their priviledge, just in case.