Permit to Purchase

[jshuberg]

Lifted from a previous post: viewtopic.php?f=21&t=47369&p=494533&#p494533

This is a personal pet peeve of mine. The idea that rights can be restricted by government, because after all "you can't yell fire in a crowded theater". Well, its bull$hit. This common piece of folklore originated in the US Supreme Court ruling Schenck v. US.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States

The case involved a man who was distributing leaflets urging people to resist the draft during WWI. The Supreme Court ruled that speech is not protected by the 1st Amendment when it represents a clear and present danger. The reference to yelling fire in a crowded theater was never actually part of arguments, but simply used as a metaphor. The language in the opinion was:

The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.

However, the court reversed itself in 1969 in the Brandenburg v. Ohio ruling:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio

Here, the court found that a "clear and present danger" was too broad a criteria for limiting 1st Amendment protections, and adopted the new standard of an "imminent lawless action". So the commonly cited metaphor breaks down under the current standard. While falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater may be a danger, it's still protected as it's not the advocating of an imminent lawless action.

A person can yell fire in a crowded theater. He may be arrested, or even charged with a crime, but the standard set by the Supreme Court in 1969 results in his speech being protected, and he should not be found guilty of a crime simply because of his speech. Only when a person advocates or "eggs on" another person to commit a crime, and the commission of that crime was imminent is the speech not protected.

Our rights are not absolute, but any limitations on our rights have to be extremely narrowly defined. Specifically, speech that poses a danger *is* protected so long as it doesn't advocate for imminent lawlessness. Any limitations on our 2nd Amendment rights should follow the same model. They should not be limited based on any "potential" for danger, but only when a lawless action is imminent, or has already been committed. This should be the only restriction the people concede to the government concerning our fundamental human rights without due process of law.

[Hmac]

HMAC,

Sorry, thats another poor, hashed-up, libtard talking point analogy.

The fundamental problem in your analogy is that you do not need to get a permit to speak, to write, to blog, to pull an add in the papaer...etc.
You absolutely can go into a movie theater and yell "FIRE"! And you do not need a permit to do it.
If there really is a fire, you better yell it!
If there isnt a fire, you are going to face the consequences of abusing your right to free speech.
But you still did not need a permit to yell fire in the first place.

If you use your firearm illegally, you will face the consqeunces of abusing your 2nd ammendment right.
The question is why do you need the permission to excercise the right in the first place.

Thats the difference.

Just to clarify, we do not live in a majority rules society, otherwise known as Mob Rule, or Democracy.
We have a Representative Republic form of Government.
51% of the majoprity does not get tell the 49% what to do.
That is why what has happened in the US Senate is so startling, and no one seems to care.

Yeah, sorry, I see that as hashed-up libertarian talking point analogy.

[johnlewjohn]

Liberal talking point, not Libertarian...

[jspace]

Why do I need permission from the government to tell me it is ok to exercise my constitutional right to keep and bare arms.

Ghhnnk

[Erud]

Why do I need permission from the government to tell me it is ok to exercise my constitutional right to keep and bare arms.

Ghhnnk

Way to focus on the important stuff.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[johnlewjohn]

Great, another grammar
Nazi...point taken and I replaced with "bear"

[jspace]

Why do I need permission from the government to tell me it is ok to exercise my constitutional right to keep and bare arms.

Ghhnnk

Way to focus on the important stuff.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I would argue that spelling and grammar are very important with written communication. Small details like that can be used against you.

[Erud]

Ghhnnk

Way to focus on the important stuff.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I would argue that spelling and grammar are very important with written communication. Small details like that can be used against you.

Sure thing, champ.

"Ghhnnk" with no punctuation is excellent use of the English language.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[photogpat]

tmp_family-guy-bear-arms-Edit599916817.jpg (22.45 KB) Viewed 2908 times

[Hmac]

Liberal talking point, not Libertarian...

Each to their own point of view.