Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What the heck are you talking about???
Seems to me that there is a mish-mash of various gun laws enacted by the states that are much more restrictive than federal gun laws.
10 rd mag limits when the feds say any capacity mag is acceptable
no "assault weapon" configuration in California (No pistol grip, no detachable mags)
And a host of other state gun laws that are much more restrictive than Federal law, so I don't know what, exactly you are ranting about.
?
LOL, so your argument is, because it's a law, it must be Constitutional? A law being unconstitutional has never stopped States or local governments from enacting it anyway..... As far as challenging the laws? There are always various cases in courts around the country, and that process can take years....
For that matter, we can't always trust that the courts are going to make the right decision. After all, the Supreme Court, by some stretch of the imagination, ruled that the internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII was "Constitutional"...... twice. They also ruled that wire-tapping your phone without a warrant was ok, and much more. Just because a judge says it's Constitutional doesn't mean it is, it just means we'll have to live with it....
The Constitution is pretty clear, it doesn't take a law degree to know that it means what it says and says what it means. States are just as prohibited from making laws against the People's Right to keep and bear arms as the Federal Gov't is. Again, read the 2A, the 10A, and the 14A.
The Washington State Constitution says:
"SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men."
What do you suppose "...SHALL NOT BE IMPAIRED" means?
As for the millionaires and billionaires having armed security forces, according to Section 24 of the WA state Constitution, seems like that is not quite proper!
But then, I guess we would have to define exactly what an "armed body of men" is!
And you have yet to show how this infringes the Constitution, besides you just "feeling" that it does.
No one is being denied a gun in Washington.
Ok.... If that's the standard, then most any asinine requirements and road blocks could be put up and it still wouldn't be unconstitutional as long as you could still get a gun in theory.
Let's apply this logic to the 1st Amendment. Let's pass a law saying that before you can exercise your freedom of speech, first, you have to go through a background check. Then. you must submit to the government, a complete draft of everything you're going to say. A government analyst will go over it and issue you a "public speaking or publishing" permit. You pay the fees associated with processing all the documents necessary, and only then can you exercise your Right to free speech.
What would be the problem here? No one would be denied the right to speak?
Ok.... If that's the standard, then most any asinine requirements and road blocks could be put up and it still wouldn't be unconstitutional as long as you could still get a gun in theory.
Let's apply this logic to the 1st Amendment. Let's pass a law saying that before you can exercise your freedom of speech, first, you have to go through a background check. Then. you must submit to the government, a complete draft of everything you're going to say. A government analyst will go over it and issue you a "public speaking or publishing" permit. You pay the fees associated with processing all the documents necessary, and only then can you exercise your Right to free speech.
What would be the problem here? No one would be denied the right to speak?
Well then we should have complete non-questioned access to any type of weapon we could think is possible. I am sure you would see no problem with a child buying a gun with his choir money to take care of a neighborhood bully.
Heck, you can't yell "FIRE!!" in a crowded theater, the government is taking away your freedom of speech I tell ya. You should be outraged.
You are right, it is no longer technically illegal, but it once was.
Quote:
Schenck argued that the Constitution allowed his expression, but the Court disagreed. According to their ruling, Schnenck’s fliers created a clear and present danger — a clear and present danger to the government’s recruiting efforts. He hadn’t endangered life, as falsely shouting "fire" in a crowded theater would have, but he may as well have.
This "clear and present danger" standard stood for half a century. Further rulings even expanded it, criminalizing additional speech. But the Supreme Court then heard a case involving a new example of questionable speech, one that modern sensibilities might find more controversial than war protests.
Yet Brandenburg claimed the First Amendment protected his speech. His appeal reached the Supreme Court, and the Court agreed with him, in contrast with the earlier Schenck decision. Advocacy, even when it encourages law-breaking, helps the marketplace of ideas, ruled the Court. Had Brandenburg instructed followers to commit a specific crime, he’d have committed a number of offenses himself. But the First Amendment protects speech that merely advocates general, indefinite illegal action.
With that ruling, the Court overturned the Schenck decision that had introduced "shouting fire in a crowded theater." No longer was "clear and present danger" a sufficient standard for criminalizing speech. To break the law, speech now had to incite "imminent lawless action."
Oddly enough, it was someone from the KKK that basically had the law changed to a much more clear definition. But that doesn't mean that there aren't limitations to freedom of speech, which the Supreme Court has gone on to say what those limitations are.
Heck, you can't yell "FIRE!!" in a crowded theater, the government is taking away your freedom of speech I tell ya. You should be outraged.
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78
It is illegal to yell "FIRE!!" if there is no fire, that is a limitation on freedom of speech for the safety of society.
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78
You are right, it is no longer technically illegal, but it once was.
Oh, good. You're already familiar with the Schenck ruling that established the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" example...... That means I can cut the length of this post in half, as I can avoid the somewhat lengthy process of explaining all that. Now, let's turn to the test set forth in that now overturned ruling. Why did the court rule that you couldn't "yell fire in a crowded theater"???? It is because (1) the person knows that his words will cause immediate harm, (2) the person uses his speech solely to cause harm, and (3) that the end result is predictable
So now let's apply this same test to 2nd Amendment Rights. There are many aspects to that, so let's stick to what we've been discussing..... I-594. (1) Does a person know that handing a firearm to someone without doing a background check first will result in immediate harm? The answer is no. (2) Is there any reason you might hand a firearm to someone other than to solely cause harm? Of course.... (3) Is the end result of handing a firearm to someone predictable, in that it will cause immediate harm to another? Again, no. So, even by the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" test that anti-gun people love to use so much, I-594 does not pass muster. We can go down the road of applying this test to banning things like machine guns as well, along with most other aspects of the gun debate.
Please Note..... that even in the theater example, the person who yells "fire" retains all of his 1st Amendment Rights right up until the point he abuses them. Restricting someone's Right to own or carry a firearm on the premise that they might abuse that right, would be the equivalent of putting a muzzle on everyone before they enter a theater or crowded building.
Oh, good. You're already familiar with the Schenck ruling that established the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" example...... That means I can cut the length of this post in half, as I can avoid the somewhat lengthy process of explaining all that. Now, let's turn to the test set forth in that now overturned ruling. Why did the court rule that you couldn't "yell fire in a crowded theater"???? It is because (1) the person knows that his words will cause immediate harm, (2) the person uses his speech solely to cause harm, and (3) that the end result is predictable
So now let's apply this same test to 2nd Amendment Rights. There are many aspects to that, so let's stick to what we've been discussing..... I-594. (1) Does a person know that handing a firearm to someone without doing a background check first will result in immediate harm? The answer is no. (2) Is there any reason you might hand a firearm to someone other than to solely cause harm? Of course.... (3) Is the end result of handing a firearm to someone predictable, in that it will cause immediate harm to another? Again, no. So, even by the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" test that anti-gun people love to use so much, I-594 does not pass muster. We can go down the road of applying this test to banning things like machine guns as well, along with most other aspects of the gun debate.
Please Note..... that even in the theater example, the person who yells "fire" retains all of his 1st Amendment Rights right up until the point he abuses them. Restricting someone's Right to own or carry a firearm on the premise that they might abuse that right, would be the equivalent of putting a muzzle on everyone before they enter a theater or crowded building.
Background checks are not unconstitutional, nor are they when it comes to requiring a background check for all gun transactions. Until the Brady Act is deemed unconstitutional, the chances of this being ruled unconstitutional is pretty slim.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
