"Reasonable restrictions"

[Len S]

I would like to run an idea past you people.I also posted this over at the 1911 forum. I keep hearing that the 2nd admendment, even if it is an individual right can be restrictied just like the First is. They give the exmples of you cannot lible or slander anyone and you can't shout fire in a crowded theater. Well I guess those are resonble limitations. There is no limit on ownership just use. Well I guess you cannot limit ownership of language. Books, art,music, movies,and pictures yes,language no. However books and everything else mentioned above are also covered under the first admendment. It is funny that pornography is illegal but the definition is so narrow that very little falls in that catagory while they make the assault weapon definition so broad that it is like a blackhole sucking in more and more firearms into its definition.
So reasonable restrictions comparable to the first would be no restriction on ownership just use. Examples: You cannot slander or liable another person under the First admendment and you cannot murder another person under the Second. You cannot shout fire in a crowded theater under the First and you cannot wave your firearm around to cause a public disturbance or panic under the Second. Since people like to throw the First admendment restrictions at us when talking about restricting the Second I thought maybe a little Honesty is in order. Now I am not a lawyer nor did stay in a Holiday Inn express last night so tell me where the flaws are before I try to use this.


Len S

 

[igpoobah]

It sounds like solid logic to me.

 

[SWMAN]

The problem with using "reasonable restrictions" is that they mean different things to different people. To deny a felon the right to keep and bear arms to him may be an unreasonable restriction because he can no longer legally possess a firearm to protect himself from a BG trying to harm him. To non-felons, it may be reasonable to prohibit a felon from having a gun as he has previously proven through violating a major law he cannot be trusted with upholding the law and therefore may not be capable of using using a firearm in a legal way.

With the antigun crowd, "reasonable restrictions" doesn't mean anything except to keep expanding the definition of reasonable restriction. Is it reasonable to make a gun purchaser wait 30-90 days for a background check on a purchase? Sure is or maybe not. Maybe that's too short a period of time to wait. Maybe it should be 6 months. Maybe individual COMMUNITIES SHOULD SET THEIR OWN STANDRADS as to what is a reasonable restriction?

Reasonable restrictions is quicksand. Better to have none.

 

[Henry Bowman]

Your observations on the distinction between "keep and bear" and "use" are significant and widely ignored or blurred by the antis are correct.

Use of the "Search" feature will reveal that this subject has been discussed extensively. That is not to say that there can be no new ideas or viewpoints on the subject, just that we don't need to replow every field.

It is funny that pornography is illegal but the definition is so narrow that very little falls in that catagory...

I believe you mean "obscenity," which is illegal and based on community standards, rather than "pornography," which is protected legal expression (with limited restrictions as to children).

 

[Blackfork]

More to the question.

The question seldom arises about whether "arms" is limited to firearms. What about knives, swords, pikes, axes, bayonets? Most of these are as prohibited in parts of the country as firearms are in DC.

 

[SWMAN]

Blackfork, you're right. Arms in the 2A includes edged weapons also as they were used and still are used in warfare. They were certainly used by colonial militia, standing armies, and in current U.S. forces-pikes and swords in formal military parades these days.

 

[Blackfork]

Long dark shadow...

The Second Amendment, like the first, ought to have emanations, penumbras, shadows, reflections, enhancements that expand that right to include tazers, areosols, ice picks, saps, throttles, cudgles, pikes, arrows, atlatls, airguns, blowguns, et, et, et.

If the FIRST Amendment protects nude dancing and Jesus-in-a-jar-of-urine, then the second ought to expand to protect suppressors, Boys anti-tank rifles, full-auto, et, et.

What the heck happened?

Actually, ALL of them ought to be expanded rather than contracted. Maybe we Bill of Rights defenders ought to be protesting in the streets carrying potato guns and slingshots.....as should be protected by the Second Amendment.

 

[TallPine]

You cannot slander or liable another person under the First admendment and you cannot murder another person under the Second. You cannot shout fire in a crowded theater under the First and you cannot wave your firearm around to cause a public disturbance or panic under the Second.

That pretty much sums it up (although the "wave your firearm" rule could be interpreted very loosely )

The whole "shouting fire in a theater" analogy has always been ridiculous. The way we apply it to guns means you would have to have your tongue cut out before you could enter a theater.

 

[poor_richard]

Len,

Your analogy is spot on. Unfortunately, many people who are pro gun, are in fact anti-2nd Amendment. Since they don't want to be construed as anti-2nd Amendment, they come up with ideas like, "what does infringe actually mean?" (when all it takes is a dictionary to know the meaning), or "greater good" and "reasonable restriction" (even though no such exceptions are given in the 2nd Amendment.

 

[ilbob]

I wonder if one of the reasons the courts do not like 2A cases is because the meaning of the word "infringe" has not been litigated. Most words and phrases in the constitution have been litigated enough that it is pretty clear what they mean.

Most of us like to think "infringe" is anything that might inconvenience the expression of our 2A rights. At some point, the courts are going to explore this and come up with a definition they can live with. It may well not match our own.

 

[ZigZagZeke]

"Infringe" generally refers to a limited trespass. In this case it could be argued that the framers of the 2nd Amendment MEANT PRECISELY to prevent infringments like assault weapons, and handgun bans on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

 

[poor_richard]

I wonder if one of the reasons the courts do not like 2A cases is because the meaning of the word "infringe" has not been litigated. Most words and phrases in the constitution have been litigated enough that it is pretty clear what they mean.

Most of us like to think "infringe" is anything that might inconvenience the expression of our 2A rights. At some point, the courts are going to explore this and come up with a definition they can live with. It may well not match our own.

Infringe (in frinj') vt.;fringed’, -fring'ing
[[L infringere, to break off, break, impair, violate < in-, in+ frangere, to BREAK]] to break (a law or agreement): fail to observe the terms of; violate --SYN, TRESPASS -infringe on (or upon) to break in on; encroach or trespass on [to infringe upon their right to privacy] --in-firnge'ment n. ​

I double-checked it to make sure I got everything right. That's straight out of Webster's. Without a ruling, the common definitions are usually what are accepted. The only reason to get a ruling is because someone just doesn't agree with the 2nd Amendment. It's not ambiguous or difficult to understand. It's simple and straight-forward.

 

[frankie_the_yankee]

Since they don't want to be construed as anti-2nd Amendment, they come up with ideas like, "what does infringe actually mean?" (when all it takes is a dictionary to know the meaning),

Ahhh..... many of them may not be anti-2A at all, but they realize that if you want to know what something means at law, you consult the courts, not a dictionary.

 

[mekender]

Maybe individual COMMUNITIES SHOULD SET THEIR OWN STANDRADS as to what is a reasonable restriction?

then you really open a can of worms... an interesting note is that the first amendment only specifies that "congress shall make no law" which has been interpreted (wrongly in my opinion) to mean that any government body... but the second says "shall not be infringed"... notice it doesn't specify who shall not infringe, and in my thinking that means that NO ONE should be able to infringe...

 

[poor_richard]

Ahhh..... many of them may not be anti-2A at all, but they realize that if you want to know what something means at law, you consult the courts, not a dictionary.

The same courts that said it isn't a violation of free speech to persecute someone for making political commentary. And that said it's not a violation of personal property rights to take your house and sell it to some developer who wants to throw up a high rise. Whatever.

Further, it is common that, without a court decision defining the term, the common dictionary term is used.

 

[frankie_the_yankee]

The same courts that said it isn't a violation of free speech to persecute someone for making political commentary. And that said it's not a violation of personal property rights to take your house and sell it to some developer who wants to throw up a high rise. Whatever.

Yes, those courts.

Look, I happen to agree that the cases you alluded to above were wrongly decided. In my opinion, The Court got it wrong.

But regardless of my opinion or yours, their opinion is the law of the land.

So what to do? Try to get people elected who will pass laws more to our liking. And try to get people elected that will appoint better judges.

Anything else just leads to arnachy.

Oh yes. Another thing. Don't throw your vote away by giving it to the standardbearer of the "Slow Wheat" party, no matter how ideologically pure they appear to be. The Slow Wheat guy isn't going to win, and if you vote for him, it's just as if you voted for Hillary Hussein Obama.

 

[poor_richard]

Oh yes. Another thing. Don't throw your vote away by giving it to the standardbearer of the "Slow Wheat" party, no matter how ideologically pure they appear to be. The Slow Wheat guy isn't going to win, and if you vote for him, it's just as if you voted for Hillary Hussein Obama.

LOL,

Thanks for that one frankie. That was funny.

BTW:

Actually, it's the Constitution that is the law of the land.

 

[IA_farmboy]

I have seen a legal dispute where a dictionary definition will get you what you want. When I was younger we had our ATV stolen off the farm. My dad called in a claim to the insurance company and they denied coverage of a "recreational vehicle". My dad was not happy as we used that ATV daily in performing our work. We used it to haul feed, move calves, and pull empty wagons.

So my dad knew that tractors were covered under insurance and looked up the definition of a tractor in the dictionary. It read something like, "a vehicle used to doze or tow". Dad called them back and read the definition of a tractor to them. They looked up their own definition of a tractor and it read something like, "a vehicle with tracks or low pressure tires, designed for off road towing or dozing." The insurance company paid for a new "tractor".

I think the insurance company also revised their definition of a tractor.

Unless there is some legal definition of "infringed" that somehow is in opposition of Webster I think that just about every law on the books concerning arms infringes on our constitutionally recognized rights.

 

[ilbob]

Unless there is some legal definition of "infringed" that somehow is in opposition of Webster I think that just about every law on the books concerning arms infringes on our constitutionally recognized rights.

I looked up the word infringe in several online law dictionarys. None of them had anything on point, only about patent infringement.

 

[Henry Bowman]

None of them had anything on point, only about patent infringement.

For what it's worth, patent infringement is an "all or nothing" proposition. There may be close cases, but there is no such thing as "a little bit infringed." There is either full liability, or none. Essentially the same with other IP infringements. I can't think of other legal uses for "infringement" of property rights. Others usually say "violated" or "breached" or "misappropriated."

 

[ilbob]

a lot of people think there is a law that says you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theatre. there just isn't one.

there are laws that require you to take responsibility for your actions if they (may) result in harm to another person.

 

[IA_farmboy]

Any "reasonable restrictions" on firearm use need not specifically mention a firearm.

It is illegal to murder another (as opposed to "kill" which has a different connotation). The weapon used should be irrelevant to the punishment.

It is illegal to injure, threaten injury, or otherwise coerce another. That would include rape, slavery, theft, and such. The means of the threat need not be mentioned by law. The use of a firearm, knife, hot curling iron, or cattle prod to injure another should be equal under the law.

What has happened in the past is that the crime of "... with a gun" which is supposed to be a modifier to a crime has become a crime in itself. Such as a person is charged with murder with a gun but ends up being found of killing in self defense but is still charged under the "... with a gun" portion of the law and gets five years in jail. These so called "reasonable restrictions" get abused to punish the weak and terrorize the public.

I have to ask what is the point of restricting firearms? Is it to reduce crime? I think there is plenty of evidence to show that does not work.