Are some Constitutional rights more equal than others?

[Little-Acorn]

The 14th amendment says that no government can deny the privileges or immunities of any citizen due to skin color, ethnicity etc., all citizens must get equal treatment.

Imagine if a Federal building put up a sign in a hallway saying, "No black people allowed past this point". The outrage would be immediate and overwhelming, for obvious reasons: Not only is it hugely insulting and detrimental to blacks who don't deserve such treatment, but it is a flagrant violation of the 14th amendment. The Fed govt's job is to uphold and obey that (and all other) amendments, not to violate it.

Now imagine if a Federal building put up a sign that said, "No guns allowed past this point". That is just as much a violation of a Constitutional right, as the other sign would be. And law-abiding American citizens who would like to carry a gun (as the Constitution explicitly permits), have done nothing to deserve being treated like second-class citizens this way. Yet many Federal buildings have exactly such a sign, and they even try to enforce it.

We certainly can't put the first sign (about black people) in a Federal building. Why can we put the second (about law-abiding people carrying guns)?

 

[The Rabbi]

They are subject to different restrictions. If government can demonstrate a legitimate interest in restricting a right then they have the power to do so. Currently they believe they can demonstrate that banning guns from, e.g. post offices makes people safer. The reality is different of course, but that is the argument.
Different rights are also subject to different levels of scrutiny. The highest means that something is ipso facto unconstiitional unless government can demonstrate a compelling need. That is the case with voter IDs currently.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

We certainly can't put the first sign (about black people) in a Federal building. Why can we put the second (about law-abiding people carrying guns)?

To protect the people inside from the kinds of people who like guns and end up in court because of it. They have a bad habit of shooting at the authorities.

 

[Little-Acorn]

They are subject to different restrictions. If government can demonstrate a legitimate interest in restricting a right then they have the power to do so.

Ah, that's right. The Constitution says so, right in... umm... where was that again?

If I'm afraid a person with a gun might hurt or kill me in that Federal building, I can have the police ban all guns from the building.

And if I'm afraid a black person might hurt or kill me in the same Federal building, I can have the cops ban all black people from the building.

Can't I?

If not, why not?

 

[The Rabbi]

They are subject to different restrictions. If government can demonstrate a legitimate interest in restricting a right then they have the power to do so.

Ah, that's right. The Constitution says so, right in... umm... where was that again?

If I'm afraid a person with a gun might hurt or kill me in that Federal building, I can have the police ban all guns from the building.

And if I'm afraid a black person might hurt or kill me in the same Federal building, I can have the cops ban all black people from the building.

Can't I?

If not, why not?

Um, you're not the state?
ConLaw is more complicated than simply reading the document. Sorry, I wish it weren't but that isn't how a legal system runs. Go get some education and come back to discuss.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The 14th amendment says that no government can deny the privileges or immunities of any citizen due to skin color, ethnicity etc., all citizens must get equal treatment.

Imagine if a Federal building put up a sign in a hallway saying, "No black people allowed past this point". The outrage would be immediate and overwhelming, for obvious reasons: Not only is it hugely insulting and detrimental to blacks who don't deserve such treatment, but it is a flagrant violation of the 14th amendment. The Fed govt's job is to uphold and obey that (and all other) amendments, not to violate it.

Now imagine if a Federal building put up a sign that said, "No guns allowed past this point". That is just as much a violation of a Constitutional right, as the other sign would be. And law-abiding American citizens who would like to carry a gun (as the Constitution explicitly permits), have done nothing to deserve being treated like second-class citizens this way. Yet many Federal buildings have exactly such a sign, and they even try to enforce it.

We certainly can't put the first sign (about black people) in a Federal building. Why can we put the second (about law-abiding people carrying guns)?

This is so comprehensively ignorant and inane one hardly knows where to start…

Although our civil rights are inalienable they are not absolute, and are subject to reasonable restrictions by government.

In order for government to place restrictions on our civil liberties, any proposed restrictions must be rationally based, must be supported by objective, documented evidence, and must pursue a proper legislative end.

For government to disallow African-Americans to enter a Federal building violates the Constitution because it is not rationally based, there is no evidence in support, and it does not pursue a proper legislative end – it seeks only to disadvantage a particular class of persons, and make them different from everyone else.

That is not the case with regard to certain restrictions concerning firearms:

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

Unlike disallowing African-Americans access to a government building, disallowing firearms in a government building is applied to everyone equally, no particular race, creed, color, religion, gender, or sexual orientation is disadvantaged.

Prohibiting guns from being carried in certain government buildings is rationally based, there is objective, documented evidence in support, it pursues a proper legislative end, and it comports with Second Amendment jurisprudence per Heller – which is not the case with regard to denying African-Americans access to a government building.

Consequently, and needless to say, your ignorant ‘analogy’ fails, as you’re comparing two completely different standards of judicial review, and two completely different applications of Constitutional case law.

 

[Little-Acorn]

So, since the liberals have violated the Constitution in the past and persuaded people to let them get away with it, this means that what they did suddenly becomes "constitutional"?

That's like saying that, since some bank robbers have succeeded in heisting money from the local bank and have gotten away with it, than means that all laws against robbing banks must now be modified with "reasonable restrictioons" to let all robbers get away with it to some extent.

In fact, the Constitution provides a means to let people get away with certain technical violations of its laws. But that means of "reasonable restriction", has nothing to do with any kind of legislation from any government, which remains 100% banned.

And the reason for that 100% ban on government having ANY SAY AT ALL in which law-abiding citizens can carry guns and where, becomes more and more obvious with every post the gun-hating liberals put up here: They leftists are using the lie about "reasonable restrictions" to disarm law-abiding people while doing nothing to disarm those who don't obey laws.... and are especially using that lame excuse to disarm free citizens who dare to resist their big-government aims.

The liberal fanatics are proving the worst fears of the Framers who wrote the flat ban against government telling people what guns they could carry . And every time the liberals do it, the country's normal people become less free... and the body count gets higher.

No matter how many excuses the leftist throw up, the fact remains that it is just as illegal for them to ban people from bringing a gun into a Federal building, as it is for them to ban black people from entering that same Federal building.

And all the case law, past restrictions, and other "we got away with it" excuses they so proudly point to, still do not supersed the clear language of the Constitution that declares their acts illegal, no matter how much outraged huffing and puffing they keep handing us.

If the people who wrote and ratified the 2nd amendment had meant there to be exceptions to that law, they would have written them into it, just as they did with the 1st, 4th, 5th, 14th etc. amendments.

But in the 2nd amendment, they were careful to leave all such exceptions or "reasonable restrictions" OUT.

And it wasn't because they forgot.