[Andy]

A further explanation of ?my law?.

Bbeil: Issues of free speech and assembly. No doubt everyone has the right to free speech and the right to assemble. There?s no way I?d want to infringe on free speech, more than the restrictions that are already placed on it. The right to assemble also has restrictions, I don?t think the ?law? I proposed would infringe on that right.

Ron: The law is already in place to determine how many people constitute an un-lawful assembly. I?m not sure about Texas, however several states I am familiar with have laws that say if three or more individuals gather in a public place for an un-lawful purpose (with the intent to violate a law) it is, in and of itself a violation of the law. Hence these protesters causing public safety problems can already be arrested, my issue is money and giving police a heads up on what's going to happen. Today, the protesters can go to court pay a $50.00 fine and walk away. I?d like to see illegal protesters pay for the additional costs placed on public safety. Also, if they block intersections so that a fire truck can?t get to a fire, or an ambulance can?t get to a heart attack victim they would be held liable in Civil Court.
Activities such as ?Fill the Boot? to help firefighters purchase new equipment or to aid a good cause is an assembly but there certainly is no illegal or potentially violent intent. When a high school wins the state football championship you have people driving down the road beeping their horns and yelling, a rally on the school campus and no doubt some young ladies (not your daughter of course) being over come with passion. All that is just fine, nothing really illegal. Those activities are a far cry from people assembling on a public street, burning flags, hurling threats and sometimes rock.
I?m going out on a limb here, I?d guess this sort of thing takes place a lot more often where I live than in your area of Texas. One local city?s chief of police recently said that 15% of his over time budget, so far this year, has been spent on anti-war protesters. That does not include his court over time budget which will be largely inflated when some of these people demand a trial so they can air their views in court. This is taking place at a time when the city of Springfield (for example) is laying off 76 full time cops due to budget shortages.
The intent of the law would not be to further impede a persons right to speak out but rather to make him/her more responsible for their own actions. Many of these protesters protest with the intent of being arrested. With rights there must come some responsibilities.

JerryD: One nice thing about living in this area, those fire ants that are causing you folks problems can?t live this far north. This past January in NEVER got above freezing! When the ground is covered in snow for 3 months they don't seem to fair well.

Stay healthy,
Andy
PS: Freedom isn't free, not even for protesters.