Tag: land of the free

‘No rational reason’: Court strikes government restriction on customers who want to visit home-based businesses

The Court of Appeals of Tennessee, located in Nashville, has struck down a municipal ordinance that limited the number of customers who could visit a home-based business.

It is invalid because it discriminated based on the type business it was.

According to a report from the Institute for Justice, which fought on behalf of record producer Lij Shaw and hairstylist Pat Raynor, Nashville’s rule allowed the two only six client visits a day at their businesses.

And then the city came up with “invasive and burdensome requirements.”

However, other businesses based in homes, such as short-term rentals, home daycares, historic homes and more, were allowed to have 12 or more clients daily, “free from additional requirements.”

“This kind of arbitrary favoritism has no place under the Tennessee Constitution,” explained Paul Avelar, a lawyer for the IJ. “Lij and Pat have a constitutional right to use their homes to earn an honest living. But Nashville treats their home-based businesses worse than other, privileged, home-based businesses for no real reason.”

The lawsuit stems from the city’s 2017 attacks on the two businesses, in which it shut them down.

Then came COVD, and the city allowed them to have six client visits daily.

Now a unanimous ruling from Judges Frank Clement, Andy Bennett, and Jeffrey Usman agreed with the claims that the city had not offered good reasons for favoring some home business over others.

The ruling said, “Metro has offered no rational reason for the difference in treatment that is relevant to the purpose of the law.”

The case already has been to the state Supreme Court, which rejected a lower court’s dismissal and reinstated it for further opinions at the lower court level.

At first, the lower court claimed the limits were “constitutional because they were rationally related to the city’s interests in preserving the residential nature of neighborhoods.”

The appeals ruling noted that the city changed its code during the time period that the lawsuit was pending. But throughout the proceedings the city exempted short-term rentals, home-based daycares, historic buildings and such.

The case ended up addressing the city’s irrational decision to distinguish between different types of home-related businesses.

“Plaintiffs argued that there was no rational reason that was relevant to the purpose of the law for distinguishing between their businesses and the Exempt Businesses. In support, Plaintiffs produced evidence that their businesses had no more of an impact on the residential character of neighborhoods than the Exempt Businesses,” the ruling said.

The opinion noted the city didn’t even try to dispute that.

Keep reading

Village tries to fine Long Island woman who replaced lawn with native plants

“That front yard look hideous”

Xilin Zhang overhauled her front lawn with native plants in New Hyde Park.

“It’s a very natural look,” she said. “There’s tons of butterflies and bees and birds coming … It’s not just some grass doing nothing.” 

It’s the outgrowth of a Town of North Hempstead grant to encourage native plant gardens. But Zhang was told her yard clashes with the village code, and she received a summons with a fine up of $2,000. 

The village mayor, bluntly, said Zhang’s yard was “hideous.”

“When ugly is that overwhelming, you have to call it what it is. That front yard looks hideous,” Mayor Christopher Devane said. 

After four rounds in court, the village and Zhang reached a compromise. The summons was dismissed, but the garden must stay below 4 feet. 

“We need to move away from big green lawns”

Native plant advocates in Port Washington launched a movement to get suburbanites to ditch their lawns. Gardens, like Zhang’s, have more attractive benefits, they say. 

“Sustainable gardens are not just beautiful for the eye. They protect our drinking water,” Mindy Germain, Port Washington’s water commissioner, said. “We’re trying to move away from these big green lawns that are sucking up too much water from our aquifer.” 

“There are lots of towns on Long Island which are encouraging people to put in wild flowers because they don’t want all that pollution going into the bay,” Raju Rajan, president of Rewild Long Island, said. 

Keep reading

She Got a Permit for Her Chickens. Now the City Is Fining Her $80,000.

The city of Douglas, Michigan, is determined to take the “free” out of “free range.” In 2023, Kathryn Sarkisian, a resident of the Lake Michigan tourist town, wanted to do something that seemed simple enough: raise chickens in her backyard. She then sought—and received—a permit directly from the city, authorizing her to do so. Barely a month later, the city pulled an about-face, telling Sarkisian that she would have to get rid of her chickens on account of a neighbor’s complaint.

Douglas originally passed its chicken ordinance in 2020, which gives neighbors a 21-day period within which to object to nearby chicken permit requests. This process wasn’t followed, though, since the neighbor’s complaint came after the city had already issued Sarkisian’s permit. The city claimed that it had forgotten to notify the neighbors of their right to object during the review process and had therefore done so retroactively. Since one neighbor ended up objecting, Sarkisian was told she’d have to get rid of her chickens.

In the meantime, Sarkisian had spent $23,000 building a chicken coop and a privacy fence to shield the chickens from view. When Sarkisian refused to budge, the city began assessing a $300-per-day fine in November 2024. This means she is currently facing nearly $80,000 in fines for her refusal to comply with the city’s demands. Worse yet, the city hasn’t even clarified when the tolling period for the fines started—if it started from the time she began raising the chickens, the fines would now total over $200,000.

Despite the immense financial penalties at play, Sarkisian’s six plucky chickens still stride outside her back door. “I was raised in a family that loves this country, that believes in our freedom, that’s grateful for people who fought and who still fight for our freedoms,” Sarkisian told MLive in a recent interview. “And those freedoms and rights are very near and dear to me.”

Keep reading

Mayor Bass Abruptly Orders Curfew for Downtown Los Angeles

After four days of coddling rioters and attacking President Donald Trump for federalizing California National Guard troops, Democrat Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass suddenly turned law and order on the fifth day, announcing a curfew in downtown L.A. starting at 8 p.m. PDT Tuesday, giving about two hours notice. The curfew will end at 6 a.m. Wednesday. Residents, homeless, credentialed media and workers in the curfew zone are exempt according to statements by Bass and Police Chief Jim McDonnell.

The Trump administration’s efforts to enforce immigration laws in the sanctuary city and state of Los Angeles, California has been met with resistance by violent protesters and mockery by Gov. Gavin Newsom, Mayor Bass and many other Democrat elected officials.

Bass made the announcement at a press conference and followed with a post online where she still blamed President Trump, “I issued a curfew starting tonight at 8pm for Downtown Los Angeles to stop bad actors who are taking advantage of the President’s chaotic escalation. If you do not live or work in Downtown L.A., avoid the area. Law enforcement will arrest individuals who break the curfew, and you will be prosecuted.”

Keep reading

The Founders on What Really Makes a “Land of the Free”

“All might be free if they valued freedom, and defended it as they ought.”

Samuel Adams penned these words with the kind of clarity that makes modern political discourse look like finger painting.

Here’s the rub: Do we actually value freedom enough to defend it? Or have we become so comfortable with our chains that we’ve forgotten what it means to be truly free?

Let me be blunt. Freedom isn’t about having benevolent masters. It’s not about government officials who promise to be nice – or even those who actually do.

It’s about power itself – who has it, who controls it, and most importantly, whether it can be stopped the instant it exceeds its limits.

THE ACID TEST OF LIBERTY

During the height of the Revolution, John Dickinson posed the fundamental question that should haunt every American today. What does it actually mean to live in a “land of the free?”

“For WHO ARE A FREE PEOPLE? Not those, over whom government is reasonable and equitably exercised, but those, who live under a government so constitutionally checked and controlled, that proper provision is made against its being otherwise exercised.”

Let that sink in. The “Penman of the American Revolution” wasn’t talking about good government. He was talking about limited government – one that literally cannot exceed its bounds without being immediately slapped back into its constitutional box.

In short, if government has vast power but simply chooses not to use it today, congratulations: you’re not free. You’re just lucky.

THE ARCHITECTURE OF FREEDOM

Decades earlier, John Trenchard understood this distinction with painful clarity. Writing in Cato’s Letters, he declared that checks on government are the sole difference between free nations and unfree ones.

“Only the checks put upon magistrates make nations free; and only the want of such checks makes them slaves.”

Trenchard took it further and explained that freedom depends on one simple question: Do the people control the government, or does the government control itself?

“They are free, where their magistrates are confined within certain bounds set them by the people, and act by rules prescribed them by the people: And they are slaves, where their magistrates choose their own rules, and follow their lust and humours.”

Sound familiar? When government writes its own rules, interprets its own powers, and judges its own actions, you’re living in a soft tyranny – even if it respects the constitution and your liberty. The velvet glove doesn’t change the iron fist underneath.

Sound familiar? When government writes its own rules, interprets its own powers, and judges its own actions, you’re living in a soft tyranny. The velvet glove doesn’t change the iron fist underneath.

As Montesquieu put it, the solution is to use power to check power.

“To prevent this abuse, it is necessary, from the very nature of things, power should be a check to power.”

Making that work requires something most people don’t grasp – you need so many restraints on government that it’s practically in a straitjacket. Why? Because, as Thomas Gordon explained, humans are predictably terrible with power.

“Considering what sort of a creature man is, it is scarce possible to put him under too many restraints, when he is possessed of great power: He may possibly use it well; but they act most prudently, who, supposing that he would use it ill, inclose him within certain bounds, and make it terrible to him to exceed them.”

The founders took this seriously. They didn’t design a system betting on good people doing the right thing. They designed it knowing that any power that can be abused will be abused.

Keep reading

City in Colorado Will Seize Residents’ Pets If They Violate Strict Animal Ownership Limits

A Colorado municipality will soon authorize the seizure of cats and dogs from residents who exceed a new cap on animal ownership.

Denver7 reports that starting in August, the city of Northglenn, located roughly 40 minutes from Denver, will impose a strict rule prohibiting residents from keeping more than four animals in total.

This includes cats, dogs, or any combination thereof, with the total “not exceeding four.”

According to the city, the ordinance was passed by the council “at the request of residents and after extensive research and discussion.”

Officials say the decision follows complaints from community members about “excessive noise and waste caused by a high number of pets in some neighborhoods.”

Those who currently own more than the permitted number of animals have the option to apply for a “previously owned pet exception” prior to the law’s enforcement date.

If submitted in time, the exemption allows Northglenn residents to keep their “existing pets” and avoid having them confiscated by authorities.

The application requires pet owners to provide details, including the animal’s name, breed, sex, age, and the date it entered the household.

Failure to comply with the rule, including failure to report animals exceeding the new threshold, could result in “enforcement action,” which may involve “a potential court order requiring pet removal.”

“Our goal is to work with residents to ensure compliance through education and outreach before any enforcement action is taken,” the city stated.

‘Pets bring joy and companionship to our lives, but they also come with responsibilities.”

”By establishing reasonable pet limits, we aim to ensure that everyone living in Northglenn, both pet owners and non-pet owners, can enjoy their homes and neighborhoods.”

Granting the government the authority to seize pets raises serious concerns about property rights, due process, and overreach into private life.

While both New York and Los Angeles have limits on pet ownership, violators are typically punished through citations and eviction from rental properties.

The other place where animal confiscation is normalized is in communist China, where a controverisal one-dog policy once allowed authorities to confiscate dogs exceeding the size or number limits.

Keep reading

Lawn Gone Liberty: The Update

It’s finally spring.

Better mow your lawn.

If you don’t, your town government may fine you thousands of dollars a day. 

Worse, if you can’t pay the fine, they may confiscate your home.

Six years ago, in Dunedin, Florida, Jim Ficken let his grass grow. 

His mom had died, and he’d left town to take care of her estate. He asked a friend to cut his grass, but that friend died, too!

In the two months Ficken was away, his grass grew taller than 10 inches.

City bureaucrats started fining him.

But they didn’t tell Ficken that. When he finally got back, there was no notice of the $500-a-day fine. Only when he ran into a “code enforcement officer” did he learn he’d be getting “a big bill.”

When the bill came, it was for $24,454.

Ficken quickly mowed his lawn. Then the city tacked on another $5,000 for “non-compliance.”

Ficken didn’t have that much money, so city officials told him they would take his home.

Fortunately, Ficken discovered the libertarian law firm, the Institute for Justice, which fights government abuse.

IJ lawyer Ari Bargil took on Ficken’s case, arguing that the $30,000 fine violates the Constitution’s limits on “excessive bail, fines, and cruel punishments.”

But a judge ruled that the fine was “not excessive.” 

Of course, judges are just lawyers with robes. Often they are lawyer/bureaucrats who’ve become very comfortable with big government.

I call a $30K penalty for not cutting your lawn absurdly excessive, 

IJ attorney Bargil told local news stations, “If $30,000 for tall grass in Florida is not excessive, it is hard to imagine what is.”

Dunedin’s politicians often impose heavy fines for minor transgressions.

One resident told us, “They fined me $32,000 for a hole the size of a quarter in my stucco … For a lawn mower in my yard … They fine people they can pick on … and they keep picking on them.” 

It happens elsewhere, too.

Charlotte, North Carolina, fined a church for “excessive pruning.”

Danbury, Connecticut, charged a resident $200,000 for leaving his yard messy.

Bargil notes, “It’s pretty apparent that code enforcement is a major cash cow.”

In just five-and-a-half years, Dunedin collected $3.6 million in fines. 

But by then, I and others had noticed. We were reporting on Dunedin’s heavy fines. 

So did the politicians sheepishly acknowledge that they had milked citizens with excessive fines and give the money back?

Of course not. They hired a PR firm. That cost taxpayers another $25,000 a month.

Keep reading

Is America Finally Having Its Raw Milk Moment?

American media is abuzz with news of President-elect Donald Trump’s nomination of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to be the head of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Seemingly every story mentions his controversial views on topics from vaccines to fluoride in the water to raw milk—a longtime libertarian cause célèbre. Though it’s hard to envision a more unlikely catalyst, RFK Jr.’s nomination may be the final push that gets raw milk across the legalization finish line.

Until the late 1800s, raw milk was simply known as “milk” and was the only game in town for Americans desiring a delicious dairy beverage. But when it was discovered that heating up products like milk could reduce the presence of potentially harmful bacteria, the pasteurization craze was underway. Given reports of thousands of babies dying from bacteria-riddled milk around this time period, pasteurization was seen as a remarkable public health breakthrough.

This set off a wave of 20th century state and local government mandates that required milk to be pasteurized. Finally, in 1987, a federal court cemented a federal ban on all interstate raw milk sales. But not long afterward, the modern organic food movement was born, and raw milk became a cult favorite among the crunchy political left. Now, raw milk has increasingly been adopted as a sort of culture war status symbol on the political right.

“Long a fringe health food for new-age hippies and fad-chasing liberal foodies, raw milk has won over the hearts and minds of GOP legislators and regulators in the last few years,” writes Marc Novicoff in Politico. In addition to its inherent deregulatory appeal, Novicoff recounts that “conservatives discovered that raw milk fit neatly inside a worldview that was increasingly skeptical of credentialed expertise.”

Over the last decade, numerous states have passed laws to legalize raw milk, leading food policy expert Baylen Linnekin to declare that the “raw milk restoration is underway.” Could it now be about to kick into overdrive, potentially even spreading to an overturn of the federal interstate sales ban?

Whatever one’s views of RFK’s potential adeptness—or lack thereof—at navigating the federal bureaucracy to pursue his agenda, he may not be the only member of Trump’s cabinet to be a raw milk enthusiast. Rep. Thomas Massie (R–Ky.), who has run a bill in Congress for the last decade to overturn the federal ban, is heavily rumored to be the next Secretary of Agriculture.

Keep reading

“It’s a wrong policy”: Questions arise after Buffalo Outer Harbor takes down kites

Questions are being raised about kite rules after a man was surrounded by five park police officers at Buffalo Outer Harbor State Park on Sunday.

“A park ranger came and said you need to take those down. And we were nice to him and said no sir it’s a special day, it doesn’t come around in Buffalo that often where you have a perfect sunny day and 10 mph winds” said Jim Emanuele, who was flying about 10 kites with a friend in the park.

After refusing to take down the kites, the situation escalated.

“I’ve been here before and they told me to take it down. That’s why I don’t come here often” said Emanuele.

As it turns out, kite flying is not allowed in Buffalo State Park without a permit.

“It’s a wrong policy, why you can’t fly kites here right here on the outer harbor. People enjoy, there’s no risk, there’s no powerlines there’s no airport around here so what is the reason that you cannot fly kites here”

Channel Two reached out to New York State Parks for an answer. In a statement released to us, they said quote:

“large kites such as the ones in question can pose a safety risk to park patrons or result in property damage, which is why state park regulations require permits to fly such kites. In this case, no permit was requested or granted.”

Jim says that for him and many other kite flyers, permits are not ideal because you just never know when a perfect kite day will be – but despite the unpredictability, the rule still stands. 

Keep reading

Legalizing And Regulating Drugs Is The Only Way Out Of The Overdose Crisis

Should heroin and cocaine be legally available to people who need and want them? If we are serious about stopping the crisis of drug overdose deaths, that is exactly the kind of profound change we need. Yes, extensive regulations would be necessary. In fact, the whole point of regulating drug production and sales is that we can better control what is being sold and to whom.

After British Columbia’s Provincial Health Officer Dr. Bonnie Henry testified to the all-party health committee in Ottawa in May that regulating these controlled drugs would minimize harms, B.C. Premier David Eby said he disagreed. He is quoted saying that “in a reality-based, real-world level, (it) doesn’t make any sense.” But does our current approach of drug prohibition “make sense?”

Since the overdose crisis was declared in 2016, illicit drug toxicity deaths have become the leading cause of unnatural death in B.C. and the leading cause of death from all causes for those aged 10 to 59. More than 44,000 people have died from drug poisoning in Canada since 2016, and more than one-third of those were in B.C. An average of 22 people are dying every day in Canada because the illicit supply of drugs is toxic.

Keep reading