Posted on 09/08/2002 9:22:43 PM PDT by doug from upland
The evening started innocently enough for Brian Whitman, Sunday evening talk show host on KABC in Los Angeles.
He had on his show four minor candidates running for governor of California. Three were on the phone and the fourth, Libertarian candidate Gary Copeland, was in studio.
The conversation eventually turned to illegal immigration. Copeland did not like Whitman's position and called him a racist. Although Whitman kept trying to answer, Copeland kept talking over him and would not let him speak.
Just as Whitman puts callers in "timeout" on his show when they won't let him have his say, he told the engineer to cut off Copeland's microphone. Copeland became incensed and started packing his things to leave the studio.
Then, in great FReeper tradition, Whitman told Copeland not to let the door hit his ass on the way out. He also called Copeland a lunatic.
Then the rain came. Copeland walked over to Whitman and spit in his face. Whitman couldn't believe it. Two others on the KABC staff couldn't believe it.
Whitman had the station call the police and is considering filing assault charges.
Poor Copeland. He may no longer be the Libertarian candidate for governor. An official high ranking representative of the party called in to Whitman and told him that Copeland would be receiving no more backing and they were going to see what they could do to take him off the ballot.
Now that was classic talk radio. The unbelievable happened. A candidate for governor actually showed himself to be a bigger jackass than Gray Davis. Davis has spit on the law but never on Whitman, at least not yet. Brian, get him in studio.
So that's your MO? You freely embrace those tactics?
Looks like you have an admirer. No accounting for taste.
Drug use causes a condition known as cotton mouth. Its the exact opposite of too much saliva.
You know, TJ, this on-going infantile crap of yours counts is a bigger LP "sales pitch" than you want it to be.
Whoa! Hold it right there. Pure legislation alone cannot over-side an Amendment written into the Constitution without following proper proceedure. The Amendment proccess is clear to understand. Until the Second is modified, it mean what it says and no "simple majority" can over-ride it. As "supreme Law of the Land", States cannot pick and choose which portions of it they can ignore.
While your point may have the backing of current law-makers and judicial activists, aren't they the same ones most of us on FR bitch about constantly? Why support them on this issue? Why degrade someone who tried to do something about it? Because of a few small bumps in competitive idealogy? A petty reason to destroy the fundamental structure of our Republic.
What you are describing is a pure Democracy. Abhorent!
Ya mean if I'm nice to the criminally insane you will become a libertarian? lol
Would you like to answer a couple of those questions now? Or are you going to continue to be a coward and repeat " he's nuts!"?
I'm sure we'll be hearing all of the conspiracy theorists saying it was actually the J-E-W-I-S-H spit of a Mossad agent sent there to destroy the great Libertarian reputation amongst the American population.
Putz.
"But it is universally understood, it is a part of the history of the day, that the great revolution which established the constitution of the United States, was not effected without immense opposition. Serious fears were extensively entertained that those powers which the patriot statesmen, who then watched over the interests of our country, deemed essential to union, and to the attainment of those invaluable objects for which union was sought, might be exercised in a manner dangerous to liberty. In almost every convention by which the constitution was adopted, amendments to guard against the abuse of power were recommended. These amendments demanded security against the apprehended encroachments of the general government--not against those of the local governments." -- Barron v. Baltimore 7 Pet. 243 1833
Read a book.
I am reserving my rights without prejudice by UCC 1-207 and their statute court and the statute that I have violated, must have an injured party, and since there is no injured party, or complaining witness, the court has no jurisdiction under Common Law. This Statue Court made a legal determination that it has the authority under the jurisdiction that it is operating, to ignore two sections of the Uniform Commercial Code which I will call to its attention and I will put him and the court on notice that I will appeal his legal determination, and that if I am damaged by his action, I will sue him under the jurisdiction of the UCC. My recourse appears in the Uniform Commercial Code at 1-103-6, which says: "The Code is complimentary to the Common Law, which remains in force, except where displaced by the code. A statute should be construed in harmony with the Common Law, unless there is a clear legislative intent to abrogate the Common Law. I am instructing you now to add this to my appeal. I am making explicit reservation of my rights at 1-207, and I insist that the statutes be construed in harmony with the Common Law. If this court will not allow the Constitution and the Supreme Law of the Land to guide its hand and the Jury instructions that he gave, I am forced to defend with the Statute Jurisdiction/Admiralty jurisdiction that he has forced upon me and which the UNIFORM COMNMERCIAL CODE is the overriding authority for his actions. To say that I am unhappy that I was never advised by the Court regarding this issue, is something that will be addressed in Judge Patterson's Court, and the appeal that I will file after the sentencing.
Fringe on flag nonsense.
Read a book my ass. You are justifying your lack of logic and support of even more encroachment of our Rights. We may as well not even have them using your definition!
You are nothing but a goddamn Tory. Should we re-instate the Rule of Lords so that you could switch up to Duke Roscoe?
Pathetic. I almost feel sorry for you that you are such a coward.
They can, do, and have followed the "proper" procedures for doing so.
Be that as it may, the Second Amendment refers specifically to what Congress may or may not do w/respect to the RKBA. The 2nd says nothing about what the states, counties, or cities may do with regard to firearms -- which makes it prime 10th Amendment territory.
Stanley also cited the Colorado Constitution: Section 13. Right to bear arms. The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons.
What he leaves out, however, is the "Home Rule" aspects of Article XX: Such charter [of the municipality] and the ordinances made pursuant thereto in such matters shall supersede within the territorial limits and other jurisdiction of said city or town any law of the state in conflict therewith.
The Home Rule article has in fact been used as precedent to uphold the in cases like these. (Somebody once posted a link to the relevant precedents, but I have since lost it.)
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.