Temporary Injunctions?

[Bailey Guns]

In all seriousness, we are living in post-legal, post-Constitutional society* that continues to exist because the governed continue to give their consent to lawless government.

That's what I was getting at in the other thread when I wrote this:

When has anyone (by that I mean an organized group) REALLY resisted ANY gun control measure that's been instituted in this country in our lifetimes? I can't think of an instance. Not in 1934. Not in 1968. Not in 1986. Not in 1994. Not in 2013. Resistance has occurred in the courts for the most part. And the record is mixed. Yet we have hundreds of millions of guns in the hands of ordinary people.

We're generally a law-abiding society. It's what we do because we believe in it. Or, at one time we did. It seems the sentiment is changing into one that says, "Yeah...that legal stuff really doesn't work for me. I want it my way."

[wyome]

Are Mr. Acosta's 1st amendment rights being violated/ obstructed, or it the 1st amendment rights of his employer??

He isn't attending press conferences as a concerned citizen, but rather as an employee of a publication...

[DavieD55]

Acosta shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the WH. He's not a reporter. He's a provocateur who is only there to create a scene and manufacture discontent and discord. The guy is NOT the news. He's just an opposing opinion head shameless globalist/marxist. I hope the judge is ignored.

[Irving]

I only browsed the thread, but I don't understand why you'd get a restraining order against the place that you are demanding access to.

[BushMasterBoy]

It is the presidential private residence and he alone should decide who has access. The same as you control access to your own house. The president cannot decide what the reporter says on the CNN network. That is freedom of the press.