This case reinforces how the first amendment protects the second.


The left once again attempted to silence opposing viewpoints and attack Constitutional rights, most recently attacking Santa Claus.

It is hard to believe that some Americans seemingly hate the rights to speech and bear arms, yet liberals in Michigan are fighting both the first and second amendments in a recent employee lawsuit.

In Michigan, in 2015, Calvin Congden volunteered for the Hillsdale Foster Care Children system to be one of Santa’s helpers. While he brought joy into many children’s lives, he caused a stir in his workplace when he expressed being a gun owner.

He is a military veteran and at the time was working for the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services after “being recently transferred from Michigan Department of Corrections.”

Over the Christmas season, Congden posted a picture to social media of himself holding a black, frightening-looking ‘assault’-type rifle while wearing his Santa Claus costume.

He was in his full right to do so and endangered no one.

The adored figure handled his gun safely while posing for the photo, exemplifying basic firearm safety by not pointing the gun at anyone and keeping his finger off the trigger.

Also notable, Congden had his picture taken in an arguably patriotic location: in front of a Christmas tree and an American flag.

Despite the devastating number of men who have sacrificed their lives for freedom, liberals continually show their disrespect for veterans, such as Congden, whose war medals could also be seen in the picture.

In a ridiculous display of this, a local woman and “fellow employee,” Allison Zinn, found the photo to be disturbing and threatening.

As a manager of the department, she had the authority to ensure that Congden lost his job, which she did on the ridiculous basis that he “looked crazy” in the picture.

Given the extreme infringement of first and second amendment rights, Congden rightfully took the issue to court on January 10, 2016, when he filed a ‘potential discrimination’ complaint.

Zinn was successful in turning other employees against Congden by saying that a gun-owning veteran is a dangerous individual. Subsequently, Emilee Hudson and Zoe Lyons supported Zinn firing Congden and were included in the lawsuit.

The following day, Congden reportedly “met with defendant[s] Hudson” and Zinn and informed his co-workers that they had unjustifiably terminated him and that as a disabled veteran, he took great offense to this.

On Tuesday, Federal Judge Mark Goldsmith ruled that “Calvin Congden’s lawsuit can proceed on his first amendment claims and other arguments” which will consider “protections under the Americans with Disabilities Act.”

He will be represented by Nacht Law.

As a former member of the military and department of corrections, Congden surely has more “extensive firearms training” than the average person and should not have been judged for exercising the second amendment “in his own home.”

However, more importantly, this case is considered highly important for Constitutional defense as it explains why “the first and second amendments have been intertwined,” as if the Founding Fathers knew that future traitors may one day try to use the first amendment to attack the second.

It will surely be addressed in court that if a citizen is legal to bear arms, then he is also within his right to express this, such as in a photograph.

In other words, there is a reason why the right to bear arms is near the top of the Bill of Rights.

Writer for Gun Watch, Dean Weingarten advocated for this beautifully when he said, “Pictures of armed people are a strong defense of the second amendment. They are strong, protected, political speech. They make the point: I am armed, I am here, and I am not going away.”

Thankfully, Judge Goldsmith has so far expressed that he will rule in Congden’s favor, unsurprising given the strength of his case.

Even a liberal writer for the New York Times could not deny the principles being challenged in Congden’s case, considering a piece he once wrote explaining the symbolism of open carrying.

Patrick Blanchfield admitted the ‘paradoxical upshot’ that there is a legal limit to how Americans can use the first amendment to support the second.

He noted that while actions such as maliciously brandishing are, of course, illegal, law-abiding citizens may carry where legal even if it makes liberals uncomfortable.

In Congden’s case, such a place was his own residence and anti-gun liberals were still threatened by it.

Thankfully, that is not how America is governed and the offending parties will learn this in court as the case “may be going to the Supreme Court.”

The strength of the second amendment depends on the first more than ever as gun-grabbers have been attacking it with recently especially disturbing methods.

Fortunately, weakening the second amendment is not as easy as liberals would hope; however, that will not stop them from trying, which is highly disturbing for patriotic Americans to watch.