The First?
Plenty…
Copyright laws, libel, slander, defamation, personal threats and on and on. No you don’t have an unfettered right to free speech- nor should you. And just like the 1st there are numerous limitations to the 2nd. Because…common sense.
Doesn’t most of that stuff (e-verify,IRS, INS) come under “regulations” rather than requiring legislative solutions?
Couldn’t some of that already be the ‘regulation of the land’? Just askin’.
So it’s illegal to perform certain actions with speech, mostly if things are not true.
What the left is proposing gun wise is regulating the possession of a right, rather than the actions with that right. Yelling fire in a theater is not illegal if there is a fire, you still have that right. Falsely causing a panic if there is not a fire is illegal. It’s the action with the right that is regulated. Not the right itself.
Like the 1st, the 2nd has been limited (infringed) again and again- from automatic weapons, to requiring wait times for purchase, to local decisions on what weaponry is permissible, open carry, etc - the judiciary has upheld numerous limitations. Both the 1st and 2nd have limits because- again- common sense.
And as I’ve said before. Just because they have done something, doesn’t mean they actually have the constitutional authority to actually do it. The list is endless on the things the govt has done that it actually has no grounds to do.
Do you agree with the limitations to the 1st that I mentioned?
Yes. Limitations on actions are perfectly acceptable in most cases.
Much like killing someone with a firearm is illegal. (Ignoring self defense). The action can be illegal without infringing on the right itself.
Yelling fire in a theater: legal if there’s a fire, illegal if there isn’t.
Killing another person: legal if it’s self defense, illegal if it’s not.
Banning a firearm is not a law based on an action, it’s an attempt to preempt an action with a right that specifically says it’s not to be regulated.
Saying well we do infringe on it because… common sense, is not actual legal grounds to circumvent the simple wording that they can’t infringe on it.
If they don’t like it…amend it. But ignoring it is technically illegal.
Yes they do, they just infringed on it to appease those with vapors.
You’re really arguing that guns aren’t arms?
Not if the precedent violates the Constitution it’s not.
You are right. The Court is made up of people who have political and personal beliefs. They are just as capable of violating the Constitution as the other two branches of government.
But my point is they have already ruled that military arms are protected. To rule otherwise today would go against established precedent, which is a higher legal bar than setting new precedent.
All arms are not guns, but all guns are arms. You have the right to keep and bear arms, therefore, you have the right to keep and bear guns along with any their arm you may chose to own. And nowhere, in any English Dictionary, do the words “shall not be infringed” allow for regulation. Regulation, by definition is an infringement. The only part that you have correct is that the Court being complicit in violations of the Constitution by the other branches of Government is a reality.
What about that confuses you?
I gave you the only answer you are going to get. Guns are arms, therefore, they are included in the term as used in the Constitution.
Perhaps you feel differently about your use of your computer to spout your opinion on the Internet being Constitutionally protected free speech. I see no mention of computers or the Internet in the Constitution.
Not without infringing, you can’t.
What guns have been banned?
It all comes down to judges and that is why i support bipartisanship when appointing them because the government doesn’t care about your rights or the constitution. those are just words on a fancy piece of paper they don’t mean anything to the government and their agenda ask the Native Americans.
The government doesn’t care about the Constitution or any other piece of paper when it comes to their agenda.
No. Those are not limitations on your right to speak, those are limitations on your right to harm others. Those laws hold you responsible for doing harm, not limiting what you say.
And common sense is not a legal justification to ignore the words “shall not infringe.” We as a people may tolerate that infringement, but toleration does not change the meaning of the word.
warrantless surveillance is also a violation of the Constitution, but the government and the court didn’t give a ■■■■■
Hell Obama DOJ said even having a debate about the merit of the program would be a threat to national security.
Just to be clear: you’re suggesting that the precedent banning private ownership of fully automatic weapons, e.g. an M16, was wrongly decided? (Sorry - I’m ignorant of the case law.)
If so, you’re ideologically consistent - I’ll give you that. I just can’t agree, nor, I would think, can the vast majority of most Americans. And yes, I’m fully aware that public opinion is not really a factor in adjudicating the Constitutionality of laws.
Absolutely wrongly decided.
