Quote of the day—Diane S. Sykes

Both Heller and McDonald suggest that First Amendment analogues are more appropriate, see Heller, 554 U.S. at 582, 595, 635; McDonald, 130 S. Ct. at 3045, and on the strength of that suggestion, we and other circuits have already begun to adapt First Amendment doctrine to the Second Amendment context.

Diane S. Sykes
July 6, 2011
Circuit Judge
United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit
RHONDA EZELL, et al., v. CITY OF CHICAGO
[This occurred over a month ago but the taste is still incredibly sweet. The Second Amendment is to be treated like the First Amendment. Learn to use that analogy when you have discussion with the anti-gun people. If we learn to use it correctly I’ll bet it will have a great effect on them.

And to give yourself a nice warm glow read up on “chilling effect” and ponder those implications.—Joe]

7 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Diane S. Sykes

  1. Particularly the restrictions against “Prior Restraint”, where the state prohibits an action because of what one MIGHT do instead of actual actions!

  2. Back in the late 1990s there was an amusing law review article that playfully listed what it would be like if 1st amendment jurisprudence were applied wholesale to the 2nd. The premise, if I recall, was that such an event was patently absurd, ha ha. I’d like to track that article down now….

  3. Might be interesting to see what it would be like if 2nd amendment jurisprudence were applied wholesale to the 1st. I’d be willing to bet most gun ban advocates wouldn’t like it.

  4. As the number of cases like this start to pile up, anti-rights cultists are going to progressively lose any judicial or legal standing they thought they may have had.

    Far be it for them to admit that, though…

  5. Treat the Second Amendment the same as the First Amendment, use the same doctrines and tests. 🙂 Hallelujah! Ha-le-lu-jah!

    All that wonderful language about Prior Restraint as RWW says, or that dicta about how the best reply to bad speech was more speech :), but especially all that wonderful extra-judicial language from the Leftists about how the First Amendment is absolute, with hardly any restrictions or balancing requirements. And the Fourth and Fifth Amendments come into play here as well, in ways I will restrain myself from describing.

  6. I don’t know that pro-gunners would like the Second Amendment to be treated like the First Amendment.

    Look up “restricted speech” and “time, place, manner.” Perhaps at public events, they can have Free Gun Zones just like they have Free Speech Zones?

  7. @ubu52, You are correct there are too many restrictions on the First Amendment. The specific example you give presumably would not apply to guns because, according to the Heller decision, guns are protected in part because of the right to self-defense. Therefore, it would seem, that the only locations that firearms could be restricted would be where self-defense is not required.

Comments are closed.