[IYAS9YAS]

But, just to be clear, since you "don’t have much use for bottom feeding scum", that trumps the 1A, right?

I'm not going to answer for Cripplecreek, but I am going to answer with respect to your First Amendment question. Their rights under the First Amendment end when the "peaceable" assembly ends. If they were throwing things, damaging property, spitting, causing a riot, assaulting folks, then they no longer have First Amendment protection. Period.

[semantic]

Thank you - finally a rational reply. Of course you are absolutely correct. So the question isn't no-camping regulations, notifications, permits, fees, or other unconstitutional restrictions on the 1A, but whether or not the assembly was "peaceable".

For some reason, FR has decided to fully support the police reports in this matter. But if the subject of Ruby Ridge, Waco, Erik Scott, et al come up, the tables are turned 180 degrees. Funny how that works out.

It's sort of sad, but FR and the statist right are going to come out of the wrong side on this issue. For those who aren't paying attention, there are major changes afoot. Blindly supporting a police state just because you don't like the opposition can only lead to loss of influence in helping shape positive change.

[NewinTexsas]

Their rights under the First Amendment end when the "peaceable" assembly ends. If they were throwing things, damaging property, spitting, causing a riot, assaulting folks, then they no longer have First Amendment protection. Period.

I would think that their 'first amendment rights' would end when they infringe on others' first amendment rights regardless of whether there is violence or not.