Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Protest Permits

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Protest Permits

    I was wondering if anyone could tell me if it would be possible (in a legal/constitutional sense) to require that protest permits be signed in person in order to be approved instead of just filing them electronically?

    The reason I'm asking this is that the Kansas Church of the Forked Family Tree not only threatened to protest at a funeral yesterday, but filed for a permit to protest. They ended up never showing (which was good). But I'm wondering if such a requirement might be possible to keep the inbred idiots from making false threats to disrupt funerals w/o any intention of leaving their state. The family yesterday wanted to have just a small private service & burial, but came to us after the CAO informed them of the wackos' filing for the permit. And while they were extremely grateful for our overwhelming show of support, I would have preferred that they have had their original wish granted. Is such a requirement possible?

    Btw, major props to the Zillah, WA PD....outstanding performance & support! And I did see some Blue Knights there....Thanks, guys!
    This Space For Rent

  • #2
    Requiring an in person signature is essential. Most permits contain limitations that ensure persons engaged in First Amendment activities do not engage in conduct that creates a hazard to public safety or health; impedes the flow of vehicle or pedestrian traffic;impedes the operation of government activities or private business operations; or interferes with the first amendment rights of other permit holders in the area. (Our permits were multiple pages long to ensure all of these things and more). Without a signature, your permit holder may simply say, "I did not agree to those terms."

    In addition, when you issue a permit electronically, it is impossible to hold someone accountable. Permits are issued to an individual, who is responsible for running his activity. He (or she) is held accountable for the activity in question and is the one you go to when there is non-compliance. When you issue a permit electronically, often the person who requested it doesn't show up, but a group of people do claiming, "we have a permit." There is no leader you can seek out to obtain correction when they act outside the terms of the permit and the group as a whole often claim you are harassing them when you seek group compliance,

    We made an individual sign the permit. We also made it clear that the activity could not commence until the permit holder was present and must end when the permit holder left. .
    Going too far is half the pleasure of not getting anywhere

    Comment


    • #3
      My city requires permit applications to be notarized.

      Comment


      • #4
        Wile we require "in-person" signatures, I LOVE the "notarized" part!! I wish we could do that.
        sigpic
        Originally posted by Smurfette
        Lord have mercy. You're about as slick as the business side of duct tape.
        Originally posted by DAL
        You are without doubt a void surrounded by a sphincter muscle.

        Comment


        • #5
          Call USCP HQ....I'm sure you could get all our details with the bazillion protests a year we get
          Just shut your damn hole




          Dead Souls-----They keep calling me

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by FJDave View Post
            Wile we require "in-person" signatures, I LOVE the "notarized" part!! I wish we could do that.
            Here it is. No clue if it was like that before the RNC came to town.

            http://stpaul.gov/index.aspx?NID=3272

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by phillydog07 View Post
              Here it is. No clue if it was like that before the RNC came to town.

              http://stpaul.gov/index.aspx?NID=3272
              I guess my problem with the notized application is that it could still be done in Topeka (who knows...maybe they have one in their "church"). What I'm looking for is for a requirement that a more overt requirment be legislated so that it can be more easily determined what is an idle threat & where they actually plan to spread their filth.
              This Space For Rent

              Comment

              MR300x250 Tablet

              Collapse

              What's Going On

              Collapse

              There are currently 4559 users online. 243 members and 4316 guests.

              Most users ever online was 26,947 at 07:36 PM on 12-29-2019.

              Welcome Ad

              Collapse
              Working...
              X