Re: Criminal Records Expunged for St. Louis Gun Couple

On Jun 20, 2024 at 12:16:56 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

On 6/20/2024 12:34 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

 In article <v51j7g$2kkd7$3@dont-email.me>,
   moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
 

 On 6/19/2024 7:15 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

 In article <v4vgil$258cf$1@dont-email.me>,
    moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
 

 On 6/19/2024 3:09 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

 In article <v4v8ug$23o16$2@dont-email.me>,
     moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
 

 On 6/19/2024 12:27 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

 In article <v4uvta$21spc$2@dont-email.me>,
      moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
 

 On 6/18/2024 9:41 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

 In article <v4t2ai$1imbc$1@dont-email.me>,
       "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
 

 BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
 

 ST. LOUIS (AP) - A judge has expunged the misdemeanor convictions
 of a St. Louis couple who waved guns at racial injustice protesters
 outside their mansion in 2020. Now they want their guns back.

 
 I had no idea that four years later, this still hadn't happened.
 
 It was a gated community, which are all over St. Louis. They were
 trespassing.

 
 Apparently 'trespassing' is a meaningless term when you're doing it
 for
 'social justice'.

 
 Don't you even *pretend* there's a built-in tug-of-war between
 "trespassing" and "peaceable assembly"?

 
 Maybe in a public place like a university quad, but not in a private
 residential neighborhood.

 
 Under the presumption that each point of view must give some ground

 
 Why would you presume that?

 
 Why would you presume I presume it, especially after I've explicitly
 labeled it a 'presumption'?

 
 If you're not presuming it and I'm not presuming it and the courts
 hearing the case in St. Louis didn't presume it, what was your point in
 bringing it up here?
 

 I'd say that the protesters' rights depend on history, geometry, etc.

 
 I'd say (and I'd be right) that no protester has rights to come onto my
 private property at all. I'm the only one who gets to decide who's
 allowed and who isn't. It's pretty much in the definition.

 
 So, e.g., we can suspend the right of peaceable assembly by temporarily
 transferring public property rights to some private party...

 
 What does such a fanciful scenario have to do with what's under
 discussion here? St. Louis didn't temporarily sell a public
 street/neighborhood to the residents of the neighborhood for purposes of
 thwarting the BLM protest. That neighborhood had always been private
 property, including the streets, since it was built decades ago.

 
 The 'fanciful scenario' illustrates that (as usual) absolutist positions
 on non-mathematical issues are untenable.  To afford protesters *and*
 property owners meaningful rights, something's eventually gotta give.

 
 Protesters have NO rights on other people's private property. Nothing
 has to give there.

 
Why do you think protesters need an explicit Constitutional right to
protest, if not because of conflict with other "rights"?

There is no conflict with private property rights in the 1st Amendment's right
of assembly. It's simply not contemplated that it would even be a question
that strangers have a right to trespass on your property so long as they're
'protesting'.