Admitting drug use = no guns?

[M14 Shooter]

Read what I said - this time with comprehension:
The CONCEPT of prior restraint, the argument behind it and the reason why it is constitutionally unacceptable, applies to ALL rights.

you're not very difficult to 'comprehend'. you just haven't a clue what you're talking about.

:roll:
Yes. This is exactly why YOU have failed to show in any way how my argument is unsound.

Thank you for supportig the premise I laid out elsewhere; as demonstrated by your inability to present any sort of sound counter-argument to what I have presented and have susequently resorted to petulant ad-homs, you clearly have nothing of value to add to this conversation.

 

[Gadawg73]

I wouldn't mind seeing a drug test along with a criminal history and mental health check before someone can purchase a gun.

Nicotine is a drug.

 

[martybegan]

so basically the only form of gun control you would find acceptable would be felons being on good behavior and volentarily not buying guns, or just prosecuting them after they commit another crime of also possesing a gun when they should not.

Like everyoe else, felons can only be prosecuted for a crime -after- they commit the crime. Certainly, you agree.

This may meet your understanding of how the constitution should work, but basically it is an impossible set of requirements to implement.

Hardly. You find a felon with a gun, you arrest him and prosecute him.
Constitutionally, you cannot stop him from buying one, you can only punish him after he does, because to try to stop him before he buys is a form of proor restraint and violates the Constitution.


That's -exactly- what prior restraint mandates.


That's -exactly- what prior restraint mandates.

The problem here is that you think there -should- be a means to do this, and you apparently don't care about the constitutional restrctions that keep you from it. Prior restraint is constitutionally prohibited for a reason; you cannot simply discard that reason because it gets in the way of something you think you sould be able to do.

The flaw here is not the prior restraint argument, but the idea that it is OK to violate the constitution and restrict -everyones'- rights in order to try to stop -someone- from possibly committing a crime.

This line of logic is just as bad as those who think banning all guns will result in a utopia of bunnies and kittens living in peace and understanding.

Non-sequitur and irrelevant to the issue at hand.

If society was forced to live under the rules as you see them, there would be such a strong movement to amend or revoke the 2nd amendment that you would end up losing ALL rights to gun ownership.

This is wholly unsupportable - anyone and everyone agress with the principle of prior restraint as it applies to the freedom of speech; only those with an agenda or a deep lack of understanding can then possibly disagree with the -exact same principle- when applied to the right to arms.

Tell me:
What's so different between the two rights that Prior Restraint clearly applies to one but not the other?

In the case of a conspiracy one can be convicted for planning a crime. There is also a crime called attempted murder.

I also want to know where in the constitution the words "prior restraint" are, or is it your intepretation of the word "infringed". I have this same argument with Roe v. Wade supporters when I ask them to find the word "abortion" in the constitution.

While I admire your radical purity on this issue, its doesn't make a whole lot of sense, and has basically been rendered moot by subsequent court rulings.

Also there is cases of prior restraint in terms of speech, for example needing a parade permit.

I guess I just don't agree with this whole prior restraint stuff.

 

[M14 Shooter]

In the case of a conspiracy one can be convicted for planning a crime. There is also a crime called attempted murder.

Both of these are criminal acts in and of themselves, and are crimes as soon as they are committed. Before a felon buys a gun he has not bought a gun and has this not committed a crime. Thus, your examples arent relevant.

I also want to know where in the constitution the words "prior restraint" are,

You're so attached to background checks that you're REALLY going to argue that prior restraint does not exist as an established legal principle?

While I admire your radical purity on this issue...

Says he who wants to dump a clearly established protection of our rights against capricious govermnet actions simply because he thinks background checks are THAT great of an idea.

its doesn't make a whole lot of sense, and has basically been rendered moot by subsequent court rulings.

Really. Expound upon this, at length. Be sure to include cites.

Also there is cases of prior restraint in terms of speech, for example needing a parade permit.

Thesre are not examples of prior restraint.
Prior restraint is based on the content of the expression in question.
Parade permits may specifically NOT be denied based on content - they may only be issued/denied based on time place and manne as it relateds to the government in question being able to accomodate same in terms of public safety.. As such, they are not related to prior restraint in nay way. Your statement here indicates you do not understand the issue.

I guess I just don't agree with this whole prior restraint stuff.

That just makes you wrong.
As I asked:
What's so different between the two rights that Prior Restraint clearly applies to one but not the other?

 

[martybegan]

In the case of a conspiracy one can be convicted for planning a crime. There is also a crime called attempted murder.

Both of these are criminal acts in and of themselves, and are crimes as soon as they are committed. Before a felon buys a gun he has not bought a gun and has this not committed a crime. Thus, your examples arent relevant.

I also want to know where in the constitution the words "prior restraint" are,

You're so attached to background checks that you're REALLY going to argue that prior restraint does not exist as an established legal principle?


Says he who wants to dump a clearly established protection of our rights against capricious govermnet actions simply because he thinks background checks are THAT great of an idea.


Really. Expound upon this, at length. Be sure to include cites.

Also there is cases of prior restraint in terms of speech, for example needing a parade permit.

Thesre are not examples of prior restraint.
Prior restraint is based on the content of the expression in question.
Parade permits may specifically NOT be denied based on content - they may only be issued/denied based on time place and manne as it relateds to the government in question being able to accomodate same in terms of public safety.. As such, they are not related to prior restraint in nay way. Your statement here indicates you do not understand the issue.

I guess I just don't agree with this whole prior restraint stuff.

That just makes you wrong.
As I asked:
What's so different between the two rights that Prior Restraint clearly applies to one but not the other?

You dodged my question on where in the constitution the words prior restraint are. I want to know where you see its basis. Please also include specifc court cases that back it up.

I also read up on wiki the prior restraint article. In terms of censorship it effectively prevents the material from ever being released or published. In that case the information is not known, and the harm comes from said information being kept out of the public to thier detriment.

In the case of a background check, as long as it is passed, there is no harm given to the party desiring the purchase of the firearm. Only those prevented from owning said weapon would be prevented.

The reason to prevent prior restraint in speech and words is that its use totally prevents the release of said information, thus nullifying the rights under the first amendment. In the case of firearms law, as long as you are not inelligible for firearm ownership, you get your gun.

I am all for defending second amendment rights, but going into another amendment and making stuff up to support the one you want enforced doesnt help things.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You dodged my question on where in the constitution the words prior restraint are. I want to know where you see its basis. Please also include specifc court cases that back it up.
I also read up on wiki the prior restraint article...

Then you are perfectly capable of finding this yourself, especially given that you have already begun the search and have included the legal principles of prior restraint in your following paragraphs.

I ask again:
You're so attached to background checks that you're REALLY going to argue that prior restraint does not exist as an established legal principle?

In terms of censorship it effectively prevents the material from ever being released or published. In that case the information is not known, and the harm comes from said information being kept out of the public to thier detriment.

Yes. This is why it so henious - the government refusing to let you exercise your right before it knows the content of your work. Note that the information CAN be released, should the issue be taken to a court and the court forces the government to let it pass - just like in a background check, if you aren't breaking the law, you can exercise your right.

In the case of a background check, as long as it is passed, there is no harm given to the party desiring the purchase of the firearm. Only those prevented from owning said weapon would be prevented.

Irrelevant. The mechanism is the same - you cannot exercise the right until it is determined you are/are not doing someting illegal. The fact that those that pass will be allowed to exercise the right is meaningless, as the same mechanism applies to prior restraint as it deals with the freedom of speech.

The reason to prevent prior restraint in speech and words is that its use totally prevents the release of said information, thus nullifying the rights under the first amendment. In the case of firearms law, as long as you are not inelligible for firearm ownership, you get your gun.

See above - You're repeating yourself, and so my previous responses are suffcient.

I am all for defending second amendment rights, but going into another amendment and making stuff up to support the one you want enforced doesnt help things.

As I asked before, I will ask again:
What's so different between the two rights that Prior Restraint clearly applies to one but not the other?

 

[martybegan]

You dodged my question on where in the constitution the words prior restraint are. I want to know where you see its basis. Please also include specifc court cases that back it up.
I also read up on wiki the prior restraint article...

Then you are perfectly capable of finding this yourself, especially given that you have already begun the search and have included the legal principles of prior restraint in your following paragraphs.

I ask again:
You're so attached to background checks that you're REALLY going to argue that prior restraint does not exist as an established legal principle?

In terms of censorship it effectively prevents the material from ever being released or published. In that case the information is not known, and the harm comes from said information being kept out of the public to thier detriment.

Yes. This is why it so henious - the government refusing to let you exercise your right before it knows the content of your work. Note that the information CAN be released, should the issue be taken to a court and the court forces the government to let it pass - just like in a background check, if you aren't breaking the law, you can exercise your right.


Irrelevant. The mechanism is the same - you cannot exercise the right until it is determined you are/are not doing someting illegal. The fact that those that pass will be allowed to exercise the right is meaningless, as the same mechanism applies to prior restraint as it deals with the freedom of speech.

The reason to prevent prior restraint in speech and words is that its use totally prevents the release of said information, thus nullifying the rights under the first amendment. In the case of firearms law, as long as you are not inelligible for firearm ownership, you get your gun.

See above - You're repeating yourself, and so my previous responses are suffcient.

I am all for defending second amendment rights, but going into another amendment and making stuff up to support the one you want enforced doesnt help things.

As I asked before, I will ask again:
What's so different between the two rights that Prior Restraint clearly applies to one but not the other?

It exists as a legal principle as far as speech goes, and with speech it makes sense. What you are trying to do is make the square peg fit in the round hole. Getting your ideas out to the public and owning a gun are two seperate issues, covered by two seperate amendments, using two different wordings (congress shall make no law vs. infringed)

The concept of prior restraint has never to my knowledge been applied by any court to firearms law. You are taking an established principal of one amendment and trying to jury rig it into another. While your goals of protecting firearms rights are noble, the method is just as bad as when the warren court discovered the contitutional right to an abortion hidden away in the document. (please note I dont think abortion should be illegal, I dont agree with the mechanics behind Roe V. Wade).

 

[M14 Shooter]

It exists as a legal principle as far as speech goes, and with speech it makes sense. What you are trying to do is make the square peg fit in the round hole. Getting your ideas out to the public and owning a gun are two seperate issues, covered by two seperate amendments, using two different wordings (congress shall make no law vs. infringed)

The differences you describe are, at best, superficial - in both cases we're discussing fundamental rights protected specifically by the Constitution; as such, any standard of protection applied to one - strict scrutiny, for instance - must be then applied to all. Rights are rights; you dont get to pick and choose the rights you like and apply stronger safeuards to them, and weaker safeguards to others.

The concept of prior restraint has never to my knowledge been applied by any court to firearms law. You are taking an established principal of one amendment and trying to jury rig it into another.

Yes. So? That prior restraint has never been applied to the right to arms in no way sustains an argument that it cannot. Further, that's exactly how things work in the legal system - established ideas are often applied to areas that were not previously considered.

While your goals of protecting firearms rights are noble, the method is just as bad as when the warren court discovered the contitutional right to an abortion hidden away in the document.

Non sequitur - in that case, they made things up from whole cloth. In this case, one established protection to a fundamental right is being applied to another fundamental right, based on the premise that all fundamental rights deserve the same protections.

 

[jillian]

Read what I said - this time with comprehension:
The CONCEPT of prior restraint, the argument behind it and the reason why it is constitutionally unacceptable, applies to ALL rights.

you're not very difficult to 'comprehend'. you just haven't a clue what you're talking about.

:roll:
Yes. This is exactly why YOU have failed to show in any way how my argument is unsound.

Thank you for supportig the premise I laid out elsewhere; as demonstrated by your inability to present any sort of sound counter-argument to what I have presented and have susequently resorted to petulant ad-homs, you clearly have nothing of value to add to this conversation.

I pointed out that your argument is unsound because it has no basis in constitutional law.

thanks for playing.

your repetition of your BS doesn't make it any less BS.

thanks for leaving out the part where i said there are guns in my home.

i guess that didn't make me look lefty enough for you.

ciao for now.

 

[M14 Shooter]

you're not very difficult to 'comprehend'. you just haven't a clue what you're talking about.

:roll:
Yes. This is exactly why YOU have failed to show in any way how my argument is unsound.

Thank you for supportig the premise I laid out elsewhere; as demonstrated by your inability to present any sort of sound counter-argument to what I have presented and have susequently resorted to petulant ad-homs, you clearly have nothing of value to add to this conversation.

I pointed out that your argument is unsound because it has no basis in constitutional law.

On the contrary - Prior Restraint - my argument - is most assuredly established constitutional law.

As such, my argument, and my assessment, stands.

 

[Father Time]

So would this mean people on medical weed would lose their right to guns?

Either way it's a bad law. It's very possible to be a drug addict and only use your gun sober. Also it's possible to quit using drugs.

 

[BrianH]

The other poster was saying that a criminal background check to see if you have convictions is unconstitutional, i.e., an 'infringement'.

Yes. It is a form of prior restraint.
Prior restraint is an infringement.

So in your world, Loughner would have had his Glock even with a felony gun crime on his record.

If Loughner had a felony on his record, he could not have purchased it legally from a store or individual considering it is illegal for a convicted felon to purchase or be in posession of a firearm. The NICS background check would have denied him if he tried to purchase it from a store. I used to sell firearms and have had to tell many individuals that they were denied by the NICS background system. Many had prior felony charges and even prior mental illness. I had an old man get denied because he was a Vietnam vet with PTSD 40 years ago. However, just because it is illegal doesn't always ensure that a criminal can't get their hands on a gun...hence the violence. If Loughner wanted to do this bad enough he would have found a gun regardless if he could have bought one legally. He would have found a gun somewhere.

 

[Gadawg73]

Anyone who admits to illegal drug use under any circumstance is an idiot.

I wouldn't even tell my doctor if I used drugs (which of course I don't and never have).

What is the difference in legal and illegal drugs?
Many legal drugs are far worse on the body than illegal drugs.
DRUGS ARE DRUGS be they legal or not.

 

[snjmom]

A gun purchase is an exchange between two private individuals. If the gun-seller wishes to protect his business and freedom by requiring that his customers submit to background checks to prevent himself from committing a crime in error, he has that right.

Now, no one can stop you from making your own gun, but you can't force a seller to sell to you unless you are in a protected-class.

 

[martybegan]

It exists as a legal principle as far as speech goes, and with speech it makes sense. What you are trying to do is make the square peg fit in the round hole. Getting your ideas out to the public and owning a gun are two seperate issues, covered by two seperate amendments, using two different wordings (congress shall make no law vs. infringed)

The differences you describe are, at best, superficial - in both cases we're discussing fundamental rights protected specifically by the Constitution; as such, any standard of protection applied to one - strict scrutiny, for instance - must be then applied to all. Rights are rights; you dont get to pick and choose the rights you like and apply stronger safeuards to them, and weaker safeguards to others.

The concept of prior restraint has never to my knowledge been applied by any court to firearms law. You are taking an established principal of one amendment and trying to jury rig it into another.

Yes. So? That prior restraint has never been applied to the right to arms in no way sustains an argument that it cannot. Further, that's exactly how things work in the legal system - established ideas are often applied to areas that were not previously considered.

While your goals of protecting firearms rights are noble, the method is just as bad as when the warren court discovered the contitutional right to an abortion hidden away in the document.

Non sequitur - in that case, they made things up from whole cloth. In this case, one established protection to a fundamental right is being applied to another fundamental right, based on the premise that all fundamental rights deserve the same protections.

Good luck getting a court to apply prior restraint to gun purchases, it would be an interesting argument from both sides, to be sure.

 

[martybegan]

A gun purchase is an exchange between two private individuals. If the gun-seller wishes to protect his business and freedom by requiring that his customers submit to background checks to prevent himself from committing a crime in error, he has that right.

Now, no one can stop you from making your own gun, but you can't force a seller to sell to you unless you are in a protected-class.

This is an interesting point as well, if background checks were not codified into law. would sellers want to avoid any overt liability in selling a gun to someone who should't have one?

The issue becomes that without a centralized system that only the government can really maintain, doing a background check would require checking with hundreds of agencies, and take a very long time. A centralized system allows for an instantaneous check.

 

[M14 Shooter]

It exists as a legal principle as far as speech goes, and with speech it makes sense. What you are trying to do is make the square peg fit in the round hole. Getting your ideas out to the public and owning a gun are two seperate issues, covered by two seperate amendments, using two different wordings (congress shall make no law vs. infringed)

The differences you describe are, at best, superficial - in both cases we're discussing fundamental rights protected specifically by the Constitution; as such, any standard of protection applied to one - strict scrutiny, for instance - must be then applied to all. Rights are rights; you dont get to pick and choose the rights you like and apply stronger safeuards to them, and weaker safeguards to others.


Yes. So? That prior restraint has never been applied to the right to arms in no way sustains an argument that it cannot. Further, that's exactly how things work in the legal system - established ideas are often applied to areas that were not previously considered.

While your goals of protecting firearms rights are noble, the method is just as bad as when the warren court discovered the contitutional right to an abortion hidden away in the document.

Non sequitur - in that case, they made things up from whole cloth. In this case, one established protection to a fundamental right is being applied to another fundamental right, based on the premise that all fundamental rights deserve the same protections.

Good luck getting a court to apply prior restraint to gun purchases, it would be an interesting argument from both sides, to be sure.

There is no sound argument against the application of Prior Restraint to the right to arms.

 

[MaggieMae]

Senator Schumer is always looking for strange and unusual ways to rape the 2nd Amendment:

WASHINGTON -- If someone admits to a federal official that he's used illegal drugs, that information should be sent to the FBI so that person can be disqualified from purchasing a gun, Sen. Chuck Schumer said Sunday

Schumer Pushes for Military to Report Applicants' Drug Use to Prevent Gun Purchases - FoxNews.com

Way to never let a tragedy go to waste, Chuck!

Asie from the fact that there's no law to this effect - no court anywhere will uphold this as 'due process'.

Schizophrenia and drug use create a perfect storm. If either is known beforehand, that person should be barred from purchasing a weapon. Together there's a guarantee of violence. It's a no-brainer.

 

[MaggieMae]

It really does seem that the democrats want America to take their eye off the ball and focus on 2nd Amendment rights. Unemployment rose this past month, the economy is still anemic at best. There still is the business of getting a budget that politicians can agree on.
But, let's focus on the 2nd Amendment.

Because Schumer made a statement? There's been no proposal, nothing discussed on The Hill about adding gun control to the current agenda. Kinda jumping the gun aren't you? (Pun intended)

 

[martybegan]

The differences you describe are, at best, superficial - in both cases we're discussing fundamental rights protected specifically by the Constitution; as such, any standard of protection applied to one - strict scrutiny, for instance - must be then applied to all. Rights are rights; you dont get to pick and choose the rights you like and apply stronger safeuards to them, and weaker safeguards to others.


Yes. So? That prior restraint has never been applied to the right to arms in no way sustains an argument that it cannot. Further, that's exactly how things work in the legal system - established ideas are often applied to areas that were not previously considered.


Non sequitur - in that case, they made things up from whole cloth. In this case, one established protection to a fundamental right is being applied to another fundamental right, based on the premise that all fundamental rights deserve the same protections.

Good luck getting a court to apply prior restraint to gun purchases, it would be an interesting argument from both sides, to be sure.

There is no sound argument against the application of Prior Restraint to the right to arms.

Actually I gave several that are very sound arguments, you not liking them doesnt make them invalid. Just dismissing them out of hand does not make them sound.

And in any case, your and my opinion wont matter, it would be for the 9 on the SC to decide it.