Quote of the day—Alan M. Gottlieb

Under the First Amendment, California is not allowed to compile a list of books you can read, and under the Second Amendment the state should not be allowed to compile a list of handguns you can own.

Alan M. Gottlieb
November 6, 2013
GLOCK FILES AMICUS BRIEF SUPPORTING SAF’S CALIFORNIA CASE
[Nor is California allowed to compile a list of religions you may join, a list of crimes that you are required to confess to, or a list of people exempt from the 13th Amendment protection.

SAF, “winning back firearms freedom one lawsuit at a time”.—Joe]

9 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Alan M. Gottlieb

  1. I like that. Pithy, to the point, draws a clear parallel. I’m sure Coquette would not understand it, because “guns are different.”

  2. It doesn’t make sense. California CAN compile a list of books you CAN read. It doesn’t mean those are the only books you can read, but California can compile lists all day long and there is no law against it. California can’t force you to read those books.

    He’s making a very poorly worded analogy.

    • You have a point even if it is little bit of a stretch.

      Perhaps it should have been, “Under the First Amendment, California is not allowed to compile a list of the only books you can are allowed to read, and under the Second Amendment the state should not be allowed to compile a list of the only handguns you can are allowed to own.

      Is that better? You do understand the point, right? And if so, do you agree with it?

      • You worded it better.

        I’m not sure I can agree with it because I see the California “list” as more of a style thing. In other words, California can say “you cannot sell books made out of endangered rhino skin” and not be depriving you of your first amendment rights. There are suitable substitutes for rhino skin.

        • But there exist no good, one-size-fits-all substitute for firearms. Unless you’ve got a phaser design you’ve been keeping under the mattress.

          • Phasers have some pretty serious drawbacks, too. I’d bet robbers and rapists would totally love the “stun” setting. It would make their jobs a LOT easier. Think about a kid sitting near a highway overpass playing a “trick” on drivers by stunning them, thinking “I’m only stunning them, not setting it to kill, so it’ll be a hoot!”

        • Your wording could use a little work too. California *cannot* deprive me of “my first amendment rights” because I don’t possess any such thing. The first amendment does not confer anything upon me, it prohibits the *government* from doing certain things.

          And as to your example, if California was to single out *books* and prohibit their manufacture using “endangered rhino skin” then they most certainly would be violating the first amendment prohibition. A blanket ban on using “endangered rhino skin” to manufacture *anything* would not be a problem — at least not as regards the first amendment though there might be other problems with such a prohibition.

          • You’re right about the first amendment, and the same applies to the other amendments. As L. Neil Smith has pointed out, “Bill of Rights” is misleading, the more accurate designation would be “Bill of Prohibitions” — because it lists a whole pile of things the government is not allowed to do.

        • ubu52, you added something unneeded to the analogy just to confuse the situation. The endangered rhino skin cover to make us all cringe, is not unnecessary and not a crucial component. The point is that the functional content of the book cannot be restricted. In like fashion, limiting magazine capacity, requiring certain safeties and loaded indicators, prohibiting accessories like pistol grips, requiring a “bullet button” all impact the functionality of the firearm and ban those that do not comply. It is basically firearms “censorship” when our choices are restricted and the Second Amendment is painfully clear that the government is not allowed to impose restrictions.

          Maybe California should compile a list of web blogs that you read. See how that injures your rights? Don’t be so quick to think that the government is benevolent and loving and guided by angels. Claw back your rights that they ursurp.

Comments are closed.