Goodbye 1st Amendment: New Bill Seizes Assets of Anyone Who Plans or Participates in

[Cebu_4_2]

Tried to understand this but the article is riddled with bias...

Goodbye 1st Amendment: New Bill Seizes Assets of Anyone Who Plans or Participates in Protests that ‘Disturb the Public Peace’

By theindigenousamericans_6i2sru (https://www.theindigenousamericans.com/author/theindigenousamericans_6i2sru/) On October 20, 2017November 27, 2017 (https://www.theindigenousamericans.com/2017/10/20/goodbye-1st-amendment-new-bill-seizes-assets-anyone-plans-participates-protests-disturb-public-peace/)

https://www.theindigenousamericans.com/2017/10/20/goodbye-1st-amendment-new-bill-seizes-assets-anyone-plans-participates-protests-disturb-public-peace/
https://i1.wp.com/www.theindigenousamericans.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/sa.png?fit=1024%2C534&ssl=1

Imagine having all your assets seized because you planned a peaceful protest that disturbed the peace? That could be a reality under SB1142, which just passed the Arizona state senate.

Under SB1142, Arizona’s racketeering laws are expanding to include rioting. This gives the state government the right to criminally prosecute and seize the assets of everyone who planned a protest that turned violent and everyone who participated.

The bill also redefines what constitutes a rioter as any person who “uses force or violence or threatens to use force or violence, if such threat is accompanied by immediate power of execution, which EITHER disturbs the public peace OR RESULTS IN DAMAGE TO THE PROPERTY OF ANOTHER PERSON.”

The vote was 17-13. One of the 17 that voted for this, Sen. John Kavanagh, gave the following justification for this absurd, unconstitutional new law: “You now have a situation where you have full-time, almost professional agent-provocateurs that attempt to create public disorder. A lot of them are ideologues, some of them are anarchists. But this stuff is all planned… I should certainly hope that our law enforcement people have some undercover people there. Wouldn’t you rather stop a riot before it starts?”

Who defines what is considered a ‘violent’ protest?
Who determines what ‘disturbs the public peace’? Does profanity, shouting, or loud music constitute disturbing the peace?

The opponents of a protest could just hire agitators to make protests violent, then the authorities could use this as an excuse to seize the assets of all the protesters.

You are peacefully protesting and some guy starts throwing rocks at windows. Not only are you arrested on racketeering charges, but then the cops come and seize your house, car, and belongings? Good luck affording a lawyer to defend you in court!

If this succeeds and is signed into law by the Governor of Arizona, you can bet a similar nationwide law will be on its way not long after…

[Joshua01]

It's time to seize our country back from the tyrants and traitors in DC

[Cebu_4_2]

Didn't read the actual bill, this article is so bias I have no idea what the actual laws would be. They say if you petition in a peaceful protest that goes wrong your accountable. Can't be quite that cut and dry.

[Ares]

Their first amendment rights end where your rights begin.

[hoarder]

"Disturbs the peace" is pretty ambiguous language.

[madfranks]

"Disturbs the peace" is pretty ambiguous language.
Purposely so.

[Serpo]

To hell with these pussy bills............................................L ETS JUST GO AND SEIZE THEIR ASSETS ANYWAY....................HAHAHA

[cheka.]

the judeo-bolshevists are working every day to further destroy

[Joshua01]

...and the rising anger of the country's patriots grows stronger...their patience running out! This may have sounded corny a year or two ago, now not so much!
the judeo-bolshevists are working every day to further destroy

[ziero0]

assets (n.)

1530s, "sufficient estate," from Anglo-French assetz, asetz (singular), from Old French assez "sufficiency, satisfaction; compensation" (11c.), noun use of adverb meaning "enough, sufficiently; very much, a great deal," from Vulgar Latin *ad satis "to sufficiency," from Latin ad "to" (see ad-) + satis "enough," from PIE root *sa- "to satisfy."


estate (n.)

early 13c., "rank, standing, condition," from Anglo-French astat, Old French estat "state, position, condition, health, status, legal estate" (13c., Modern French état), from Latin status "state or condition, position, place; social position of the aristocracy," from PIE root *sta- "to stand, make or be firm."

For the unetymological e-, see e-. Sense of "property" is late 14c., from that of "worldly prosperity;" specific application to "landed property" (usually of large extent) is first recorded in American English 1620s. A native word for this was Middle English ethel (Old English æðel) "ancestral land or estate, patrimony." Meaning "collective assets of a dead person or debtor" is from 1830.

The three estates (in Sweden and Aragon, four) conceived as orders in the body politic date from late 14c. In France, they are the clergy, nobles, and townsmen; in England, originally the clergy, barons, and commons, later Lords Spiritual, Lords Temporal, and commons. For Fourth Estate see four.

So let us see. Assests are estate. Estates are body politic separated as clergy, barons (land owners ... nobles) and everyone else. So if anyone goes after your assets ask them which division they would be interested in and then sign it over to them quickly. If they persist then point out the other sense is "collective assets of a dead person or debtor" and ask for it to be proven by sufficient evidence that you are either.