Our View

Our View

So, there’s Constitutional right to panhandle?

It appears this seemingly never-ending legal dispute over the constitutional rights of beggars panhandling on our city streets and busy intersections has reached a point where U.S. District Judge Billy Roy Wilson says the issue is “much more complex than I thought it was,” preventing him from issuing a ruling immediately.

Just the other day Judge Billy Roy listened to arguments from lawyers on both sides regarding a newly rewritten section of Arkansas law that applies to these beggars who are clearly irritating many of us who are approached while waiting for the traffic signal to turn green.

You see Judge Billy Roy found the previous wording in the state law unconstitutional last year, and the annoying liberal American Civil Liberties Union contends the new wording lawmakers came up with still unfairly subjects panhandlers – but no one else – to criminal violation.

Now, Judge Billy Roy has been asked by ACLU lawyers to impose a preliminary injunction halting the enforcement of the amended law, which took effect Aug. 1.

Here’s the funny thing about all this. So seems that during this day-long hearing recently an ACLU attorney argued that there are other Arkansas statutes that would address the state’s concerns about the majority of us being harassed or causing traffic impediments.

So seems, a Little Rock police officer and two Arkansas state troopers testified about their understanding of those statutes and how they differ from the loitering law.

They discussed state laws against disorderly conduct, second and third-degree assault, obstructing traffic, impeding traffic and harassment.

With that said we question why cities, such as West Memphis where there have been numerous complaints of beggars harassing motorists, can’t simply enforce these other state statutes that address the problem.

While the ACLU, which represents two frequent beggars, claim their constitutional rights are being violated, the state says that the revised law was carefully rewritten to conform with U.S. Supreme Court precedent, which requires any state laws restricting First Amendment freedoms to be “narrowly tailored” to protect state interests. The state says the law is necessary to protect the populace, that’s us, from harassment and fear, as well as traffic accidents.

Judge Billy Roy must now decide whether the plaintiffs (beggars) have legal standing. Then he must consider whether the state has a compelling interest in enforcing the revised law. He will also decide whether the rewritten section is too vague for police to adequately enforce, or uses terms understood by people of “reasonable intelligence.”

The point we’re making in all this is that the law, despite what the liberal ACLU contends, is necessary to protect the populace from harassment and fear. We’re specifically talking about the concerns of the majority rather than the minority here and support every effort being made by the state to represent them.