Charolettesville a non common man ruling,a betrayal?

In thinking about our 2a rights,it often runs into what some want to say is our first ammendments rights., However,I think the cities and states cannot have it both ways.

I am using Charlettesville as an antagonist in the point of view. ( Person killed by being run over rally) A lawsuit was recently dismissed, in the Charlettesville orchestrated disruption.

I note an organizer brought suit for the violence,and laid it at the feet of the city. Their contention was the city should not have had the protestors in the same space or at (near) the same time. The police knew trouble could occur and wanted to use any violation as a means to arrest.

The court said in part that the city( state) was not responsible( to me logic would say schedule the protest counter protest in different places,different times etc). The view essentially was everyone can talk,no one can do anything else,the city isn’t culpable for the actions of others.

There is a truth in that,as well as a glaring willful ignorance!

The fact that the courts ignore, group mentality or refuse to protect(operative word is refuse) by scheduling,permitting or any other means,is an example of why citizens must be able to protect themselves from govt,and circumstances
( Citizen judgement aside for the moment).

Knowing that often times people in groups act out ( not all the time,see VA 2a rally,a thing of beauty), and taking no responsibility for orchestrating or promoting a problem, shows the lack of concern for human saftey by governments.

A common man might say,why schedule the protest near each other in day or time or location.

The fact that it was done intentionally,and was used as an excuse to incarcerate is a problem.

I do not care about the content of the protestors on either side,just the mechanics of the betrayal of citizen rights vs a citizens right to be armed.

I highlight the mechanics as a statement on the abuse of govt rule,and the lack of responsibility the govt takes in our personal saftey.

If any govt can create or manipulate issues such as these,then they must acknowledge a citizens right to protect him or herself from the very govt that claims to have their interest at heart! The interest is not about personal saftey? But about manipulation and control!

If these facts are true,then a citizens right to carry should never ever be questioned?

(Remember,this is only about the mechanics of the decisions, as it validates the need for citizens to carry. This is not about points of view presented by the rally,march,riot etc.)

What does the community say?

@MikeBKY @Dawn @Zee @TexasEskimo


No one is responsibly for the actions of another (outside of a parent/child relationship). As soon as we start saying that the government is responsibly for the actions of others, we’re heading down a slippery slope. If the government has the right to say that you can’t protest at X place an time because you might not behave, then they have the right to say you can’t carry because you might not behave.

Holding the government accountable for an individual’s behavior is like holding a gun owner accountable for another gun owner killing someone. No one can predict what another will do and no one is responsibly what another does.


@Dr_Richard Good point. But after some thought I would tend to agree with @Dawn. A person needs to be responsible for their own actions. Proving the city did this just to get a negative outcome would be pretty tough. Though if that were the case, the city should be held liable. IMHO.
Enjoy the day…


Is the city government liable, if a pedestrian dies because of illegal street racing? Is the government at fault, when an arsonist burns down a house? Are the police at fault, when a criminal breaks any law? Obviously no to all of these. Like @Dawn said, if the government has the authority to limit when and where citizens can protest, they can limit other rights in a public setting as well. A bad person, did a bad thing. End of story.


Interesting topic, and thoughts.

Anyone remember the “free speech zones” during Bush II where they were quite a way away from what ever even was being held? Sure you can protest, behind this big walled in area a long ways away.


I agree with the views,however,the question is if the manipulation is true( no one denied these facts to date) (some have been admitted) ,then how can anyone defend not allowing citizens to carry.

While the govt is not responsible for an individuals action,if it can provoke a situation ( physiological effects of masses gatherings in action etc.) Then by what right does it claim to protect you by denying a right to carry.

Additionally is this a govt action,that a citizen would want to defend (be wary of) because the govt may not be acting in the best interest of (working to insure a safe environment) of all of its citizens.

I am therefore assessing how any entity (govt trying to justify) could deny people their constitutional right to carry.?

In part because that right is seated in protection from a corrupt government.



The United States Supreme Court has already answered this question. The government has the ability to put in place “time, place and manner restrictions.”

Time restrictions can be put in place that limit protesting during heavy business or rush hours and significantly hamper the general populations movement which takes priority over the individuals right to tie up traffic for individual expression. Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 536 (1965).

Place restrictions primarily focus on the type of forum where the activity is taking place. These are defined as “traditional public forums, limited public forums and nonpublic forums.”

Nonpublic forums include privately and publicly owned property that are used almost exclusively for purposes other than individual expression. Airports, jails, military bases and private residences are the simplest examples of these. Speech can be regulated and even prohibited in these areas, even speech based on a particular viewpoint.

Limited public forums are places like the Capital or city hall, courts, where the government can designate these places open to public speech at times, it can also restrict speech, although it cannot be generally based on content.

Traditional public forums are those traditionally used for public speech like parks, sidewalks and streets. These can still have time and manner restrictions but cannot be content restrictive.

The third is manner restrictions. This is where not only what is said, but what is expressed is considered. In Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989), the Supreme Court ruled that burning the flag was an example of symbolic speech. Other cases have found that wearing armbands, or certain clothing was expressive speech but burning draft cards was not since the draft cards were official documents.

So in response to @Dr_Richard arguments, the government is not at liberty to tell two set of protesters that they cannot be in close proximity to each other.

Likewise, the police, or more generally the government, does not have a duty to protect any individual person or group of persons, with some very specific exceptions, persons in custody of police.

The so-called “substantive” component of the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution does not require the state to protect the life, liberty, and property of its citizens against invasion by private actors.
Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005).

Whenever the KKK rally’s in Louisville, there are protesters across the street. Whenever pro-abortion groups protest, there are pro-lifers across the street.

And, while both District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago addressed the right to keep firearms in the home SCOTUS has not yet spoken with respect to the Second Amendments application to the right to carry outside the home or to carry a concealed weapon. We MAY get an answer when SCOTUS issues its opinion in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York but that is by no means definite.

This combination means that there is little the state can do to prevent competing or even adversarial groups from rallying/protesting in a traditional public forum with some minor exceptions. And the government is not responsible for the actions, criminal or otherwise, of the protesters.


@MikeBKY. Thanks Mike
So the long and short of this is
A) The Govt has no duty to protect
B)They may permit(and collect fees) but no duty to say where the rally and counter rally can be held
C)A right to carry must be denied on some other basis other than protection or saftey(ie mental health)
D) in general an argument on removing gun rights even if described by our representatives as a protective measure(saftey of the public) is by an large a misstatement and the particular specifics of their argument would be weighed or assessed as to the actual merits of their argument.

In your view is the above where we are at in today’s battles?

I say the above as I am examining what is said, vs aspects of the 2a. And the arguments presented to do away with a citizens right to carry. This includes states that I their constitution pledge submission to the Federal constitution,however in today’s environment they relent the pledge.

I would then presume that the arguments around public good and saftey along with other issues related to deaths etc. Are moved away( in court) from the above areas as it relates to guns, and ownership,and then the specifics of why we carry,become the issue?

And to come back to the first point here(in this response), since the govt has no duty to protect per se (within the constraints of this discussion) it cannot be viewed as a corrupt act if they do not act in a precautionary measure. (Corrupt in the sense of the 2a and citizens protecting themselves from a corrupt govt)

Note to all - All should understand- this is a forum not a legal advice,council or representation session. (In the following statement I and we are interchangeable)

I understand we are discussing a series of points and nothing said within these discussions represents legal advice by either the respondents or the USCCA


I agree with A and B.
With respect to C until SCOTUS speaks on the issue, there is no definitive answer to whether possession of firearms outside the home is protected by the Second Amendment. Unless state law says otherwise, the government can prohibit the carrying of firearms outside the home for any reason or no reason at all.
As for D, I’m not sure what you are saying. But, currently, gun rights can be removed for any reason listed under federal law and the state may make laws removing gun rights based upon probable cause of a behavior that is an “issue” under either civil or criminal laws for a period until a court or jury concludes that there is a preponderance of the evidence that the “issue” exists civilly or beyond a reasonable doubt criminally.

The established law on the first amendment has developed dramatically since the 1960s and many questions have been answered. Second Amendment jurisprudence is in its infancy. The first substantial case was Heller and it is not quite 12 years old yet, compared to 80 years of 1A cases, which are still developing.

I would love to say that the Second Amendment allows us to carry any arms we like anywhere we like but I don’t think that is where this will land. There are going to be restrictions, just as there are to the First Amendment. I doubt I will ever be able to build a Nuke in my basement but want to make sure that my right to build an AR is never taken away.

You need to assume that 2A is going to develop in baby steps, just like the 1st, like it or not! I’d say we can talk about this 70 years for now but I don’t want to live that long!


Your insight is very much appreciated,Thank You.
As they say in the movies “Good Talk”

1 Like

The problem with the idea that the Government is culpable is this. The rights under the constitution are specific. Free speech and right to peaceably assemble. It does not say you can cause harm to others because they disagree with you. Keep and bear arms. It does not say you can shoot anyone.
With a right comes great responsibility. If we the people let the government regulate that responsibility we no longer have a right and we no longer have a government of the people.


The Charlottesville rioting was directly related to the actions of the mayor and the mayor telling the police to stand down. The right-wing group had a permit to protest, the left-wing group did not. In the supposed attempt to remove the left-wing protestors, the police under direction of the mayor, forced the two groups together. They knew beforehand that there would be violence if those two groups got together. Antifa had already in many numerous previous actions shown their penchant to violence.

Unfortunately, our Governor Northam tried a similar tactic on Lobby day by suggesting their was going to be violence at an event that had never seen any violence, nor any counter-protest or anything remotely violent. It was difficult to imagine anyone being stupid enough to attempt violence against thousands of armed citizens with a police contingent protecting the area. But Northam amped up the rhetoric and demanded a GFZ. Thousands of rally attendees complied with the request, while tens of thousands remained armed outside the fenced GFZ - the Capitol grounds.

Also of note was the fact that the police were not in riot gear, so they clearly were not expecting any trouble. Neither did they display any sign of being tense or “on alert”. They would even on several occasions that I saw, go up to rally attendees and make small talk and shake hands. Some even were at the edges of the crowds, not separated by any barriers, so clearly they were not intimidated by the tens of thousands of armed citizens. After the event many people picked up any debris left on the streets.

Northam claimed a blogger stated their was going to be people armed in the buildings surrounding the Capital as the excuse to create the GFZ. However, the blogger stated that it was the police that would be overlooking the Capital in the buildings surrounding the Capital - not nefarious people. Not only were the police there, they were also on the roof of the Capital building. There were also numerous cameras overwatching the crowd on those buildings, too. There were also helicopters and small planes circling the Capitol.

Northam attempted to make it sound as though the rally was going to be a White Supremacist rally - it never was - and was not on that day either. There was even a meme of a white guy with a rifle with two black men titled “Worst White Supremacist Rally Ever” to ridicule the governor’s claim. There were numerous pictures of rally attendees in the local paper that also made it clear that it was strongly attended by all races, creeds, sexual orientations, etc.

These examples are why we cannot remain silent. We must get active and we must not submit to unconstitutional laws. To become the most effective we can be, we must all seek to educate all willing to listen and learn. Only then can we elect representatives that will uphold our Constitution and protect our rights. Our government does not grant us rights. It was founded on the consent of the people, that government is by the people and for the people, not rule over the people.


We need to get to the point as a society that people dont immediately call for the govt to act everytime someone is killed or injured. All deaths are sad but just because little timmy is a moron and decided to use his snowblower on the roof doesn’t mean we need to be protected from faulty snowblowers. Timmy needs a helmet and a sitter. In a free society people are free to make dumb decisions. We dont need more govt to protect us from ourselves if anything we need more freedoms. When someone does something stupid they need to be reminded that stupid can hurt and if you are going to be stupid you better be tough. I dont care if it’s a snowblower on the roof or 2 groups of protesters. If you make the decision to participate then you agree to accept the results. The exceptions would be when you harm someone else or a company causing harm with defective not dangerous products. You should know if something is dangerous before you mess with it so once you do you accept the results. No crying little timmy got ahold of a ecig or vape illegally and now you want all ecigs banned because you didnt watch your kid or teach him better. Shut up and get matching helmets for you and your kid.