'Shoot first' laws make it tougher for burglars in the United States

[ReillyT]

Excellent point and I think that I can explain the inconsistency very easily.
I want a gun. Bill of Rights says that I can get a gun with no strings attached.
I want to lead a peaceful protest march. Bill of Rights says that I have freedom of assembly and freedon of speech with no strings attached. I need a permit.
Hmmmm

As Fonzie would say: Exactomundo!

That was Fonzie right?

 

[M14 Shooter]

The requirement of a permit is obviously a minor restriction on this right, as it means that such gatherings may require a day or two until the permit is granted before they can be held. However, large rallies and gatherings can pose a public safety risk, even if they're aren't controversial. Hence the reasonable restriction... because this would pose a public danger (let's think a little about guns here). However, I do have that right on the sidewalk.

Yes... and...these are not restrictions based on the exercise of the right, but because the exercise of the right involves public property

If you'd like to make a 2nd amendment parallel to this, go ahead, but in terms of the exercise of the right that doesnt involde public property, it doesnt mean much.

 

[mattskramer]

These are not restrictions based on the exercise of the right, but because the exercise of the right involves public property. You have an inherent right to tell eveyone how much you hate GWB, but you dont have an inherent right to do it while standing in the middle of the road.

If you'd like to make a 2nd amendment parallel to this, go ahead.

What about on a public sidewalk? Are you saying that it is not an inerent right to speak freely in the public square? After I read the 1st amendment, you could have fooled me.

 

[Shogun]

The first amendment is meant to protect public speech on public property (and we don't have to talk about a road - how about in a park or in front of city hall or on a sidewalk?). The requirement of a permit is obviously a minor restriction on this right, as it means that such gatherings may require a day or two until the permit is granted before they can be held. However, large rallies and gatherings can pose a public safety risk, even if they're aren't controversial. Hence the reasonable restriction.

Is it really that hard to understand the analogous background check rationale?

it's not like lenny bruce had that option, you know? His is the perfect example of how a range of opinions should not infringe on rights. I don't think a background check for a .22 is even remotely logical. a single shot 20 guage? no way. a 30/30? nope. This is why there needs to be a system in place, besides people thinking big evil guns are scary, to determine which guns prompt a background check. Something based on logic and actual potential societal harm than gun hatred. something, like say, an ATF census report on the previous decades criminally used weapons.

 

[ReillyT]

some might say that allowing a population freedom itself is a stupid thing too if one considers the consequences.


The purpose of liberal application, and the presence of the Ninth Amendment, indicates to me that the liberty preserved by the constitution was intended to be broadly defined. Look at the language of the Ninth. They SPECIFICALLY tell us that enumerated rights specifically mentioned are not the sum total of our American rights. Thus, the first and second amendments, though enumerated and specifically mentioned in the bill of rights, are not limited in their application based on their specific mention. I think that this is apparent when we ALL start throwing around opinions about who and what does or does not qualify for protection under the Bill of Rights. We have a process to repeal Amendments. Opinions are not legislation. Opinions alone did not repeal prohibition. YOU may have your OPINION about what is or isn't stupid. Like I said, SOME people might say that allowing blanket freedoms at all would be stupid considering the consequences. It's one more out of many Opinions on the collected pile.

I've got no problems with a liberal construction, but in the interest of minimum standards of public safety (at the very least), I don't think (and almost no one else thinks) that every right should be construed to the maximum. I don't think that the Bill of Rights was meant to read common sense out of government regulation.

After you get to that point, where you draw the lines is based on value judgments.

The ninth amendment says that we have other rights besides those enumerated. It doesn't say that all other rights have to be construed to the maximum possible extent. It is a nice amendment. I just don't understand how you got from A to B.

 

[M14 Shooter]

What about on a public sidewalk?

What about it?

You aren't paying attention. The restriction isnt based on your right, its based on where you're exercising it -- if the restriction WERE based on what you wanted to say, there isnt a court in the US that would uphold it. You do not have the right to go just anywhere and say whatever you might have the right to say.

So, what's the 2nd amendment parallel?

 

[ReillyT]

Yes... and...these are not restrictions based on the exercise of the right, but because the exercise of the right involves public property

If you'd like to make a 2nd amendment parallel to this, go ahead, but in terms of the exercise of the right that doesnt involde public property, it doesnt mean much.

I'm sorry, I don't even understand what you wrote.

MK pretty much summed it up earlier. It is pretty simple and pretty clearly analogous.

P.S. Public property has nothing to do with it. The government doesn't have the right of restriction because it deals with public property, but because it deals with public safety. The First Amendment was primarily concerned with political speech meant to be said in the public square.

Furthermore, it would not be permissible for government to require a permit if one guy wanted to started speaking politics on the sidewalk, because... there is no safety issue involved.

Got it? Public interest is the key, not public property.

 

[ReillyT]

The restriction isnt based on your right, its based on where you're exercising it --

Could not be more absolutely wrong if that were your sole intent. It is not the location, it is the public interest/safety that is important. That is why one guy doesn't need a permit (public square or not) and a large gathering would. Do you see the public interest associated with background checks?

 

[M14 Shooter]

I'm sorry, I don't even understand what you wrote.

I'm not at all sure how that can be.

P.S. Public property has nothing to do with it. The government doesn't have the right of restriction because it deals with public property, but because it deals with public safety.

If that were true, then the government could force you to obtain a permit to exercise your right to free specch on private property, because this could very well also involve public safety.

It -cannot- do this, however.

And so, public property is -very much- the deciding issue.

Got it?

So, I ask again:
What's the 2nd amendment parallel to needing a permit to exercise the right to free speech on public property?

 

[jillian]

I'm sorry, I don't even understand what you wrote.

MK pretty much summed it up earlier. It is pretty simple and pretty clearly analogous.

P.S. Public property has nothing to do with it. The government doesn't have the right of restriction because it deals with public property, but because it deals with public safety. The First Amendment was primarily concerned with political speech meant to be said in the public square.

Furthermore, it would not be permissible for government to require a permit if one guy wanted to started speaking politics on the sidewalk, because... there is no safety issue involved.

Got it? Public interest is the key, not public property.

Exactly. Which brings us to the issue of constitutional interpretation. Laws dealing with basic rights are subjected to the highest level of scrutiny. The government has to prove that it has a substantial interest in regulation which correlates to the restrictions imposed. As you stated, public safety gives the right to place reasonable time, place and manner restrictions on speech. (although those restricrtions have also been placed on commercial speech like billboards See, Metromedia (at least that's my recollection of the case name. It held there couldn't be a total ban, but that if there was a reasonable time, place or manner restriction that was required, it would be upheld).

The Court would also have to look at the extent of intrusion upon the rights of the individual.

In the area of guns, one would, of course, subject any regulation to the highest scrutiny. But society's interest in preventing felons from having guns would rationally relate to screening gun owners, while allowing law-abiding citizens to purchse guns. This is a minimal intrusion and I can't imagine a rational supreme court finding it unlawful.

 

[mattskramer]

What about it?

You aren't paying attention. The restriction isnt based on your right, its based on where you're exercising it -- if the restriction WERE based on what you wanted to say, there isnt a court in the US that would uphold it. You do not have the right to go just anywhere and say whatever you might have the right to say.

So, what's the 2nd amendment parallel?

I’m sorry but I see it as a practically perfect parallel. You mention courts and such but look at the 1’st amendment itself. What does it say word-for-word. It does not talk about permits. If the 2nd amendment lets you buy a gun wherever you like with no limits on the type of gun, then the 1st amendment lets you speak wherever you like with no limits on the type of speech.

Yet, with the 2nd amednment you won’t recognize any limits outside the Bill of Rights. You would call such limits outside the Bill of Rights unconstitutional. Yet, you readily recognize laws and rules that limit speech outside of what is written in the Constitution. You even mention courts.

I don’t know. Perhaps I am just dence. I don’t mean to be difficult. Yet, I do see the parallel and don’t understand what explanations you give as to how there are differences. Freedom of speech and freedom to bear arms. There are limits on one but those limits are not even hinted to in the constitution. There are no limits to the other one.

Oh well. I just don’t get it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I’m sorry but I see it as a practically perfect parallel.

Well, lets see:
The 1st amendment issue of permits deal with exercising your right on public property.
The 2nd amendment issue of background checks deals with exercising your right to arms, period.

Where's the parallel?

 

[ReillyT]

If that were true, then the government could force you to obtain a permit to exercise your right to free specch on private property, because this could very well also involve public safety.

It -cannot- do this, however.

And so, public property is -very much- the deciding issue.

Got it?

Still completely wrong. Quite magnificently in fact. You're really trying, aren't you?

Public safety is exactly what it sounds like. The public. That means cars on the street, people on the sidewalk, things like that. You're right that the government may not require a permit for situations when you and your friends are gathering to watch a football game. Why? Because the general public (and their safety) is not involved. The government doesn't care if your drunk friend falls down the stairs.

 

[Shogun]

I've got no problems with a liberal construction, but in the interest of minimum standards of public safety (at the very least), I don't think (and almost no one else thinks) that every right should be construed to the maximum. I don't think that the Bill of Rights was meant to read common sense out of government regulation.

After you get to that point, where you draw the lines is based on value judgments.

The ninth amendment says that we have other rights besides those enumerated. It doesn't say that all other rights have to be construed to the maximum possible extent. It is a nice amendment. I just don't understand how you got from A to B.

It's easy. Amendment 1 and 2 are examples of specific rights granted. Amendment 9 tells us that we have MORE rights that those named specifically. This suggests that each named right, and un-named rights, are more braodly applicable than the limitations of their specific mention.

I'll remind you that the status quo who took Bruce and Ferlinghetti to task were ALSO "just thinking about the minimum standards of safety to the public" as well. You just made the same argument used to keep Lenny Bruce from saying ********** on stage. The very same that was used when Ginsberg's gay poetry was being sold at city lights bookstore. Unless you can pass legislation to repeal the rights guaranteed by the bill of rights then your rationale, regardless of how logical YOU feel about it, should mean nothing to the liberty of other citizens. It's the same reason why we've been arguing about what constitutes OBSCENE for 50 years. Indeed, I'm sure the reaganites in the 80s had an opinion about art and porn qualifying too. I'm reminded of John Ashcroft covering the naked tits on a statue. Indeed, it is imperative to interpret granted rights as liberally as possible or risk losing them to litigious opinions altogether.

 

[ReillyT]

Well, lets see:
The 1st amendment issue of permits deal with exercising your right on public property.
The 2nd amendment issue of background checks deals with exercising your right to arms, period.

Where's the parallel?

Read Jillian's post. She is right. That is it. It isn't even a question of interpretation. It is the stated basis. Believe her. She is smart.

 

[mattskramer]

Well, lets see:
The 1st amendment issue of permits deal with exercising your right on public property.
The 2nd amendment issue of background checks deals with exercising your right to arms, period.

Where's the parallel?

The 1st amendment makes no distinction between public and private.
The 1st amendment says nothing about permits.

The 2nd amendment makes no distinction between public and private.
The 2nd amendment says nothing about background checks.

 

[Shogun]

Could not be more absolutely wrong if that were your sole intent. It is not the location, it is the public interest/safety that is important. That is why one guy doesn't need a permit (public square or not) and a large gathering would. Do you see the public interest associated with background checks?

is it in the realm of public safety to prohibit comedians from using the word ********** on stage in their act? That argument has been used before.

 

[ReillyT]

It's easy. Amendment 1 and 2 are examples of specific rights granted. Amendment 9 tells us that we have MORE rights that those named specifically. This suggests that each named right, and un-named rights, are more braodly applicable than the limitations of their specific mention.

I'll remind you that the status quo who took Bruce and Ferlinghetti to task were ALSO "just thinking about the minimum standards of safety to the public" as well. You just made the same argument used to keep Lenny Bruce from saying ********** on stage. The very same that was used when Ginsberg's gay poetry was being sold at city lights bookstore. Unless you can pass legislation to repeal the rights guaranteed by the bill of rights then your rationale, regardless of how logical YOU feel about it, should mean nothing to the liberty of other citizens. It's the same reason why we've been arguing about what constitutes OBSCENE for 50 years. Indeed, I'm sure the reaganites in the 80s had an opinion about art and porn qualifying too. I'm reminded of John Ashcroft covering the naked tits on a statue. Indeed, it is imperative to interpret granted rights as liberally as possible or risk losing them to litigious opinions altogether.

Still don't think that it means what you think it means.

Otherwise, you are quite right. Lenny Bruce ran afoul of a stupid interpretation of the law (IMO). [That IMO was done with full knowledge by the way]

Does that mean that every interpretation of the law is stupid? Well, almost (I still think some are so obvious that no one questions them) certainly there are people feel that way about nearly every interpretation.

Is the answer to interpret everything as if common sense were a foreign concept? No

Must we just keep trying not to **** up too badly with the interpretations we make? Yeah, that is pretty much the way it has to be.

What is the alternative? Well, it is too stupid to even really consider.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You're right that the government may not require a permit for situations when you and your friends are gathering to watch a football game. Why? Because the general public (and their safety) is not involved.

Public safety CAN be an issue if whatever event I hold on my property is of sufficient size and open to the public -- but no matter what the venue or the number of people involved, if its on private property, the government cannot force me to get a permit.

300,000 people in a stadium built for 50,000 for a political rally clearly presents public safety concerns -- but if the stadium is private property, the government cannot touch it with a 'public safety permit'

And so, again, the restriction is --necessarily-- tied to public proiperty.

The government doesn't care if your drunk friend falls down the stairs.

It certainly -does- care about people's safety on private property -- that's why there are building codes.

 

[jillian]

Read Jillian's post. She is right. That is it. It isn't even a question of interpretation. It is the stated basis. Believe her. She is smart.

Awwwww... shucks. Thanks. *Blushing*

I think the confusion for some of the second amendment folk lies in their misconception that a right can never, under any circumstances, be restricted; that it's almost an on-demand thing. That simply isn't true. The government just needs a really good reason to make minimal intrusions.

The fourth amendment exceptions to the need for a warrant to search property come to mind as well.... exigent circumstances, hot pursuit, plain view and the like.