Posted on 10/19/2006 11:03:05 AM PDT by Res Nullius
Minutemen can't meet at Selah venue By ROD ANTONE YAKIMA HERALD-REPUBLIC
Citing safety and manpower concerns, Selah Civic Center administrators have denied meeting space to a local chapter of the controversial Minuteman Civil Defense Corps.
The group had asked to hold regular Sunday afternoon meetings in the center, which is owned by the city of Selah and operated by a city-appointed board.
But Vern Larson, the board's chairman, confirmed the board turned down the application on the police department's recommendation.
"We usually abide by what police suggest," Larson said.
Bob Dameron, the Minuteman chapter leader, said a letter denying the request -- and a check refunding the group's $75 deposit on the space -- arrived in the mail Wednesday.
"It's absolutely removing our constitutional right to meet," Dameron said. "We have good, clean outstanding people in our organization. Personally, I'd like to fight this, but it's not up to me. I'm going to take it up our chain of command and see what they want to do."
The Arizona-based Minuteman organization has gained national attention as a citizen watchdog group whose members patrol U.S. borders and report illegal activities to law enforcement. Although the group claims to be nonviolent, Chief Rick Gutierrez of the Selah police said he was concerned about documented clashes in other parts of the country between the organization and those protesting them.
"If 20 protesters and 20 Minutemen get into it, the four officers I have on day shift won't be able to handle that," Gutierrez said. "I'd have to call in officers on overtime, Sheriff's Office, State Patrol, Yakima (police). We just don't have the resources to handle something like that."
Dameron couldn't say how many people Minuteman meetings could draw. A number of local members are out of town patrolling borders, he said. The civic center can accommodate 105 people.
Earlier this week, Minuteman protesters at a Portland day-labor pick-up site encountered some rock throwing and shouting matches. And earlier this month, students at New York's Columbia University attacked Minuteman founder Jim Gilchrist, who'd been invited to speaker to the Columbia College Republicans.
Minutemen have also been being arrested or placed under police protection during demonstrations in largely Hispanic neighborhoods in California.
Chief Gutierrez noted that his concerns are not just for the community and residents, but for protesters and Minuteman members themselves.
"It's a double-edged sword. If we allow them to meet and someone gets hurt, we'll be blamed. And if we don't let them meet, people will say we're discriminating against them," he said.
Local immigrant-rights advocacy groups -- whose members worry about the fact that Minutemen are armed while they patrol borders -- are closely watching the organization and promise protests if the group gathers.
"We would definitely be there," said Maria Cuebas of Aguilas De Norte. "Undocumented immigrants are protected by our Constitution, and no one has the right to detain another person.
"But I would hope that this wouldn't erupt into anything violent or negative."
Selah Mayor Bob Jones said the Minuteman request puts the city in a "tough spot."
"It puts us in a curious decision, because we don't have a lot of police officers in case there is a confrontation," he said. "But people have constitutional rights, freedom of speech, freedom to gather. That's what this country is built upon."
* Rod Antone can be reached at 577-7628 or rantone@yakima-herald.com
Your opinion on the ruling does not matter in relation to the false argument you are making here. Municipalities cannot charge controversial groups the extra security costs.
Which means that the municipality must either watch its budget implode, raise taxes to the point where both the police and the Minutemen would get angry suburbanites fire-bombing them at assessment time, or tell the Minutemen "sorry, we can't afford it."
Note that this was to be an ongoing meeting.
The Minutemen are a lawful group, of citizens, so why should they be refused equal access to a public (taxpayer funded) facility? And the chief's cop-out doesn't cut it. The Minutemen are not the ones who are causing trouble - it's the radical open-borders crowd who are promising a protest, maybe even violence, against the Minutemen. That group should be held responsible, not the law-abiding group who just wants to hold weekly meetings in a building that their tax dollars are maintaining.
"...people have constitutional rights, freedom of speech, freedom to gather.
So gather and meet on private property."
Huh? Is that how you feel about free speech as well? Just keep at at home? Not very well "free" then is it?
So your argument applied to an event outside on the street and an auditorium for thousands. Not inside a building for 100-150 people. Great argument.
Show me the law congress passed to refuse this use, and I will support you 100%. Obviously, none was passed, so while this may suck, it may be "wrong", but it is NOT a denial of their first amendment rights to assemble and speak. That is the part that I am objecting to, couching this issue as a first amendment thing. It isn't.
See post 59. SCOTUS says you cannot bill a controversial group for police overtime due to their views. A rational corrollary is that you cannot deny a permit because their views may attract a violent response.
I may be wrong about this, but isn't the "right to assemble" only a restraint on the federal government? Or is it government in general?
The First Amendment has been extended to all levels of government.
In June 1992, in a case involving a white supremacist group in Forsyth County, Ga., the Supreme Court said communities that impose permit fees for parades and rallies can't charge more for controversial groups just because they might need more police protection.
_________________
How does this ruling apply? It seems to suggest that if you charge a fee for a permit, you cannot charge MORE for a controversial group. The ruling, at least the parts that are quoted on this thread, say nothing about municipalities being able to deny permits for (supposed) budget issues. Clearly not a comparison of apples to apples.
I do not disagree that the situation sucks. It's a shame that they cannot meet where they want, but I see no point in raising 1st amendment issues where they do not apply.
Someone help me out here. I can't seem to find the word "permit" in the first amendment.
Simple. If a municipality cannot charge extract for security for controversial groups, in turn they cannot deny a controversial group a meeting permit because security might cost more for them.
Try "right to peaceably assemble"
Try having regular church meetings in your house, assuming you live in a suburban neighborhood.
Really? Can you quote the ruling that says so, or did you see it in the penumbra?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to ASSEMBLE, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Yeah, so let's discriminate against the American citizens. After all, we wouldn't want to be mean to those illegals, let's just kick the taxpayers in the teeth, they'll just take it.
The bias runs deep in Yakima
http://www.yakima-herald.com/page/dis/315616228098479
There's a chill wind blowing....
The MM should be able to get this overturned quite easily.
Thx. I wasn't sure.
"Undocumented immigrants are protected by our Constitution..."
I must of missed this part, I can't seem to find it anywhere.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.