Constitutional limits to gun control

[PratchettFan]

Lets look at the standard comparison used when looking at the 1st and the 2nd amendment. Yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theatre.

Now, that is not covered under freedom of speech, and like shooting someone, it is very dangerous. However lets look at how one would prevent somone from yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theatre, considering first that both shooting someone without cause (self defense) and yelling FIRE in a crowded theatre without cause (no fire) are both illegal.

Applying current gun control.

In order to enter a theatre run by a federally liscenced theatre owner, you have to wait outside while the usher checked your background for any felonies. In some states you would need to be registered prior to entering the theatre. In other states if the show was outside in public, you would need a Outside speaker permit (OSP). Some states only issue these to police officers and retired police officers. One state doesnt require it at all.

People could run thier own theatre, but if they let in someone who is not allowed to watch the movies, they could be found liable. Furthermore, fast talking people (auctioneers) need to have a special permit to enter the theatre, and can only do so with the permission of the local theatre security guard. They also have to pay a tax for being able to talk so fast. This all depends on the state the theatre is in.

Now in some states as well, to prevent people from talking, gags have to be worn, with the gag only removed in case of emergency.

Currently there are movements to restrict even more fast talkers from entering the theatre. People allowed would only be those known to speak less than one word per 5 seconds, and are only allowed 10 words (or 7) at a time, before having to breathe in again"

People with funny accents would also be banned from the theatre.

If you wish to make this an accurate comparison then you should at least use the correct comparison. The "fire in a crowded theatre" was merely a metaphor used in the Schenck case. Schenck was not shouting fire when he was arrested. He was handing out political pamphlets calling for the overthrow of the US. Quite like a lot of posts on this very board. This case was overturned in the Brandenburg decision in 1969. However, the concept is the same. The idea is that this right is not unlimited, just as the 2nd amendment right is not unlimited (as supported in the Heller case). What you can't have is an outright ban.

The NRA, OTOH, is currently opposed to any limitations at all. So, to make this an accurate comparison (and we do want to be accurate, don't we) then if one is unlimited the other is as well. I can shout fire to my hearts delight. Though I wasn't the person who decided to bring in the abortion issue, it is now in the discussion, so an accurate comparison would be that any woman could have an abortion whenever she chose with no restrictions of any kind.

That is, of course, if we actually do wish to be accurate.

Where does the NRA say they want to get rid of the current background check system or CCW permits in states that use them?

And you cant yell fire without consequences, you will be arrested AFTER you do it. Just like you get arrested AFTER you shoot someone without provocation.

The concept being used is one of Prior restraint. Read it again in that light and you may get the comparison.

You can't carry a concealed weapon without governmental approval. If you do so and are caught, you will be arrested after the fact. I think you are having difficulty understanding the concept of prior restraint.

 

[NYcarbineer]

and are cars banned? do we physically limit how fast they can go? I mean whay aren't Porsche and lamborghini's banned and everyone driving a k car? why don't people have to go through universal background checks to get a license? why don't we make it illegal for one person to see his car to another person? why don't we require a permit to buy gasoline a track every gallon someone buys?

You won't get a license to drive if you've been disqualified from doing so.

Until driving becomes a Right and not merely the privilege that it IS, I'd hardly say it's a very good comparison.

Driving is a right provided you meet the qualifications. You cannot be denied either a driver's license nor the right to drive if you are qualified. That is what a right is.

 

[M14 Shooter]

If you wish to make this an accurate comparison then you should at least use the correct comparison. The "fire in a crowded theatre" was merely a metaphor used in the Schenck case. Schenck was not shouting fire when he was arrested. He was handing out political pamphlets calling for the overthrow of the US. Quite like a lot of posts on this very board. This case was overturned in the Brandenburg decision in 1969. However, the concept is the same. The idea is that this right is not unlimited, just as the 2nd amendment right is not unlimited (as supported in the Heller case). What you can't have is an outright ban.

The NRA, OTOH, is currently opposed to any limitations at all. So, to make this an accurate comparison (and we do want to be accurate, don't we) then if one is unlimited the other is as well. I can shout fire to my hearts delight. Though I wasn't the person who decided to bring in the abortion issue, it is now in the discussion, so an accurate comparison would be that any woman could have an abortion whenever she chose with no restrictions of any kind.

That is, of course, if we actually do wish to be accurate.

Where does the NRA say they want to get rid of the current background check system or CCW permits in states that use them?

And you cant yell fire without consequences, you will be arrested AFTER you do it. Just like you get arrested AFTER you shoot someone without provocation.

The concept being used is one of Prior restraint. Read it again in that light and you may get the comparison.

You can't carry a concealed weapon without governmental approval.

You can if you live in one of the several states where concealed carry w/o a permit is not illegal.

 

[PratchettFan]

Please cite the text in Heller that considers, and then rules on:
-Banning assault weapons
-Banning hi-cap magazines
-Universal background checks.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
Read it yourself. Look on pages 54-55.

Nothing here, or anywhere else in Heller, considers and then rules on:
-Banning assault weapons
-Banning hi-cap magazines
-Universal background checks

Disagree? Cite the text.

No need. You are free to live in your fantasy land if that makes you feel better.

 

[PratchettFan]

Where does the NRA say they want to get rid of the current background check system or CCW permits in states that use them?

And you cant yell fire without consequences, you will be arrested AFTER you do it. Just like you get arrested AFTER you shoot someone without provocation.

The concept being used is one of Prior restraint. Read it again in that light and you may get the comparison.

You can't carry a concealed weapon without governmental approval.

You can if you live in one of the several states where concealed carry w/o a permit is not illegal.

You are the one who used the term "CCW permit". I'm trying to follow the rules here but it would help if you all would stop changing them every time they get in your way.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

But you can still buy all the cars you want even with a suspended license. Would you support a law that lets felons buy guns but says they can't use them? THINK

Are you mentally retarded? Why do you want felons to have guns?

I'm not saying that, you are. Take a course in logic 101 and get back with us.

 

[M14 Shooter]

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
Read it yourself. Look on pages 54-55.

Nothing here, or anywhere else in Heller, considers and then rules on:
-Banning assault weapons
-Banning hi-cap magazines
-Universal background checks

Disagree? Cite the text.

No need. You are free to live in your fantasy land if that makes you feel better.

I accept your concession of the point.

Fact of the matter is that none of these restrictions have been upheld by the SCotUS and so your statement that they have all "passed muster" is a lie.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You can't carry a concealed weapon without governmental approval.

You can if you live in one of the several states where concealed carry w/o a permit is not illegal.

You are the one who used the term "CCW permit". I'm trying to follow the rules here but it would help if you all would stop changing them every time they get in your way.

Ether way, you do not necessarily have to be granted approval fom the government to legally carry a concealed weapon.

 

[G.T.]

Nothing here, or anywhere else in Heller, considers and then rules on:
-Banning assault weapons
-Banning hi-cap magazines
-Universal background checks

Disagree? Cite the text.

No need. You are free to live in your fantasy land if that makes you feel better.

I accept your concession of the point.

Fact of the matter is that none of these restrictions have been upheld by the SCotUS and so your statement that they have all "passed muster" is a lie.

He didnt concede. He told you to go do the work for yourself.

"The Second Amendment right is not unlimited. We do not cast doubt on concealed-weapons prohibitions, laws barring possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, laws barring firearms in sensitive places like schools and government buildings, and laws imposing conditions on commercial sale of arms. (54-55) Also, the sorts of weapons protected are the sorts of small arms that were lawfully possessed at home at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification, not those most useful in military service today, so “M-16 rifles and the like” may be banned."

 

[tjvh]

You won't get a license to drive if you've been disqualified from doing so.

Until driving becomes a Right and not merely the privilege that it IS, I'd hardly say it's a very good comparison.

Driving is a right provided you meet the qualifications. You cannot be denied either a driver's license nor the right to drive if you are qualified. That is what a right is.

Driving has not ever been a Right, it has always been a privilege. You meet the criteria for that privilege, you can get a license. Now a Right, especially the 2A comes with that pesky little phrase that says "shall not be infringed", something I've never seen written anywhere at the DMV with regards to legally operating a motor vehicle.

 

[NYcarbineer]

This is a lie, as Heller neither considered nor upheld any of these things.
Disagree? Cite the text that considers these things and then passes judgement.

The truth:
You cannot cite the case(s) where the SCotUS upholds, 'Assault weapon' bans, "hi-cap' magazine bans and universal background checks, becauise no such case(s) exist.

Thus, your claim that "just about every proposal made so far has already passed muster" is a lie.

Unchallenged laws are constitutional by default since they can remain in effect unless successfully challenged. You obviously don't understand how judicial review works.

You obviously aren't paying attention.
Nothing new, that.

Coming from the guy who thinks that a convicted bank robber should be able to walk out of prison and the same day buy a machine gun at the Walmart,

no questions asked,

I think your opinions are too insane to be bothered with.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Until driving becomes a Right and not merely the privilege that it IS, I'd hardly say it's a very good comparison.

Driving is a right provided you meet the qualifications. You cannot be denied either a driver's license nor the right to drive if you are qualified. That is what a right is.

Driving has not ever been a Right, it has always been a privilege. You meet the criteria for that privilege, you can get a license. Now a Right, especially the 2A comes with that pesky little phrase that says "shall not be infringed", something I've never seen written anywhere at the DMV with regards to legally operating a motor vehicle.

You can deny the right to own guns to people who won't or can't obtain the proper licensing, permitting, etc.,

and you can do so constitutionally. Does that make gun ownership a privilege?

 

[NYcarbineer]

But you can still buy all the cars you want even with a suspended license. Would you support a law that lets felons buy guns but says they can't use them? THINK

Are you mentally retarded? Why do you want felons to have guns?

I'm not saying that, you are. Take a course in logic 101 and get back with us.

You're the one making the analogy to cars.

 

[Uncensored2008]

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Read it yourself. Look on pages 54-55.

It says virtually the opposite of your claim.

{We turn finally to the law at issue here. As we have said, the law totally bans handgun possession in the home.It also requires that any lawful firearm in the home bedisassembled or bound by a trigger lock at all times, rendering it inoperable.As the quotations earlier in this opinion demonstrate,the inherent right of self-defense has been central to theSecond Amendment right. The handgun ban amounts to aprohibition of an entire class of “arms” that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose. The prohibition extends, moreover, to the home, where the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute.}

Banning an entire class of weapons, such as the AR-15, that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose is a clear violation of the 2nd, per the SCOTUS.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Unchallenged laws are constitutional by default since they can remain in effect unless successfully challenged. You obviously don't understand how judicial review works.

You obviously aren't paying attention.
Nothing new, that.

Coming from the guy who thinks that a convicted bank robber should be able to walk out of prison and the same day buy a machine gun at the Walmart,
no questions asked,
I think your opinions are too insane to be bothered with.

Your mindless, ignorant, dishonest, and bigoted opinion doesnt change the fact that you arent paying attention.

 

[M14 Shooter]

No need. You are free to live in your fantasy land if that makes you feel better.

I accept your concession of the point.

Fact of the matter is that none of these restrictions have been upheld by the SCotUS and so your statement that they have all "passed muster" is a lie.

He didnt concede. He told you to go do the work for yourself.

It is his claim, and therefore his responsibility to cite the text.
No such text exists, and he knows it; in refusing to cite the text, he concedes the point.

 

[G.T.]

I accept your concession of the point.

Fact of the matter is that none of these restrictions have been upheld by the SCotUS and so your statement that they have all "passed muster" is a lie.

He didnt concede. He told you to go do the work for yourself.

It is his claim, and therefore his responsibility to cite the text.
No such text exists, and he knows it; in refusing to cite the text, he concedes the point.

I cited the text. And you cut it from my post when you quoted it.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I cited the text. And you cut it from my post when you quoted it.

Concealed weapon laws support limitations on magazine capacity?

Seriously dude, that is idiotic.

 

[g5000]

Great op ed in this AM's WSJ ,laying out why virtually every gun control proposal made will not pass constitutional muster. Of course lolberals don't care about the Constitution. But courts do.

David Rivkin and Andrew Grossman: Gun Control and the Constitution - WSJ.com

Could there be a better illustration of the cultural divide over firearms than the White House photograph of our skeet-shooting president? Clay pigeons are launched into the air, but the president's smoking shotgun is level with the ground. This is not a man who is comfortable around guns. And that goes a long way toward explaining his gun-control agenda.

Dumbass is taking a cheap shot, pun intended, and his partisan blindness is exposing his idiocy.

Here is a video of skeet shooting in which several shots are made level with the ground.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIpFd1Xi4dU]Lamoille Valley Skeet Shoot - YouTube[/ame]

Some screen captures:

Any critical thinker who spends 60 seconds on the internet can find skeet shots that are level with the ground.

 

[NoNukes]

Well, lets take a look at the most famous incident of machine guns used in a crime. That would be the North Hollywood shootout, carried out by Larry Phillips Jr and Emil Mătăsăreanu in 1997.

Now wait a darn second! Those two guys were not able to legally own a fully automatic weapon. Are you saying criminals didn't obey the law?

Shocking...

But thanks for proving my point. No matter how "tough" the gun control law (and there are none more restrictive than those related to fully automatic machine guns), it will not deter criminals from obtain that which you hope to ban. These laws therefore only put law abiding citizens (and in the case of North Hollywood, the police) at a disadvantage.

Now that's insane.

Allowing more automatic weapons because some criminals have the does not even make good nonsense.

gee, I didn't know automatice weapons were allowed? why can't libs ever get a fact straight? or do they just love to spin?

Read what he said about automatic weapons. You are avoiding the point.