Cyborg
Member
I am asking this in all honesty and not trying to start a fight.
Context: Texas legislators to consider Open Carry in the upcoming legislative session.
Question: Would requiring a minimal amount of education - equivalent to the current CHL course - and demonstration of at least minimal proficiency with the weapon - also as is required now for a CHL in Texas - necessarily represent an "infringement" of the
I do not believe it would.
We cannot yell "fire" in a theater but isn't that an infringement of the right to free speech?
We cannot have a large gathering without getting a permit from the city. Is that not an abridgement of "the right of the people peaceably to assemble"?
Isn't the "res gestae" exception to the hearsay rule a de facto abridgement of the protection against self-incrimination? (For those of you who are unfamiliar with legal terms, res gestae refers to spontaneous statements made by a suspect - before or after he has been given his Miranda briefing)
There are other examples with which I could probably come up but these should suffice. If the left has to be sensible in its interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, doesn't the right? Would regulation of all carrying not be at least as much a public safety issue as, say, not allowing someone to hollar "FIRE!" in a crowded theater?
Cyborg
Context: Texas legislators to consider Open Carry in the upcoming legislative session.
Question: Would requiring a minimal amount of education - equivalent to the current CHL course - and demonstration of at least minimal proficiency with the weapon - also as is required now for a CHL in Texas - necessarily represent an "infringement" of the
right of the people to keep and bear Arms"
I do not believe it would.
We cannot yell "fire" in a theater but isn't that an infringement of the right to free speech?
We cannot have a large gathering without getting a permit from the city. Is that not an abridgement of "the right of the people peaceably to assemble"?
Isn't the "res gestae" exception to the hearsay rule a de facto abridgement of the protection against self-incrimination? (For those of you who are unfamiliar with legal terms, res gestae refers to spontaneous statements made by a suspect - before or after he has been given his Miranda briefing)
There are other examples with which I could probably come up but these should suffice. If the left has to be sensible in its interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, doesn't the right? Would regulation of all carrying not be at least as much a public safety issue as, say, not allowing someone to hollar "FIRE!" in a crowded theater?
Cyborg