Stealth Tyranny

In the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States we read; "Congress shall make no law....abridging....the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances". Merriam-Webster defines abridge; 1. a archaic : deprive b: to reduce in scope : diminish .

The Cape Coral, Florida City Council has tried to abridge these very rights. Wink News in Florida reported the following on March 27th;

Cape "tea party" canceled; City fears too many attendees
By WINK

NewsStory Created: Mar 27, 2009 at 6:10 PM EDTStory
Updated: Mar 29, 2009 at 8:24 AM EDT

CAPE CORAL, Fla. - A tea party to protest government spending and taxing is canceled. Canceled by the government.

Why? They feel too many people could show-up.

Lynn Rosko planned to hold a tax payer tea party at Jaycee Park in Cape Coral on April 1st. The idea was announced at a Cape Coral City Council meeting, then an e-mail blast by the Republican Party and it was mentioned in the local media.

With all of that attention, the City of Cape Coral felt there could be more than 500 people attending the tea party.Therefore Rosko needed to get a permit and insurance for the event. Rosko says she's not willing to get insurance and accept liability for something that a stranger could do. Rosko told WINK News, "I have rescinded any organizing or supervision or what ever you want to call it over this tea party on April 1st."

WINK News spoke to the director of parks for Cape Coral. He says that even now if Rosko is willing to get insurance for the event he'll likely re-authorize it.

For now Rosko's event is canceled, she's encouraging people to attend the April 15th Tax Payer Tea Party in Centennial Park in Fort Myers.

Freedom Works.org reports that the Cape Coral Tea Party is now back on.

If that story makes you angry, this next one, as Glenn Beck likes to say, "will make blood shoot right out of your eyes".

Gun owners in Illinois to carry $1 million insurance policy?

February 20, 10:53 AM ·

A new gun law has been proposed by Illinois State Representative Kenneth Dunkin (D-5th District) that would required that gun owners carry insurance of $1 million. It also makes gun owners liable for misues of their guns until the gun is reported stolen to police, and provide revocation of FOID cards for those who do not carry that insurance.

Under Illinois state law, gun buyers must obtain a license (FOID card) prior to the purchase of a firearm. A FOID card:

-Is required of anyone owning a firearm.
-Involves a basic background check
-No safety checks or fingerprints are required
-Is valid for five years.
-Does not automatically check or revoke the cards from people who are convicted or otherwise fall into a prohibited class after obtain the card.

The proposed law (Illinois HB0687) is now making its way through the Illinois House of Representative.

"Amends the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act. Provides that any person who owns a firearm in this State shall maintain a policy of liability insurance in the amount of at least $1,000,000 specifically covering any damages resulting from negligent or willful acts involving the use of such firearm while it is owned by such person. Provides that a person shall be deemed the owner of a firearm after the firearm is lost or stolen until such loss or theft is reported to the police department or sheriff of the jurisdiction in which the owner resides. Provides that the Department of State Police shall revoke and seize a Firearm Owner's Identification Card previously issued under this Act if the Department finds that the person to whom such card was issued possesses or acquires a firearm and does not submit evidence to the Department of State Police that he or she has been issued in his or her name a liability insurance policy in the amount of at least $1,000,000 specifically covering any damages resulting from negligent or willful."

It is being opposed by gun owners and endorsed by gun control advocates.

No person can guarantee the actions of another. What insurance company would write such liability policies? Why would the government burden it's citizens with the expense of having to pay for such policies, if they could be had, in order to exercise their God given rights? This is nothing more than an underhanded and sneaky way of nullifying our rights. When challenged, the government can just claim that they are not revoking a right, just placing responsible conditions on the free exercise of them. I predict that we will be subjected to a good deal more of this type of 'stealth tyranny'.