Quote of the Day
The First Amendment contains the freedom-of-speech guarantee that the people ratified, which included exceptions for obscenity, libel, and disclosure of state secrets, but not for the expression of extremely unpopular and wrong-headed views. The Second Amendment is no different. Like the First, it is the very product of an interest-balancing by the people—which JUSTICE BREYER would now conduct for them anew. And whatever else it leaves to future evaluation, it surely elevates above all other interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.
Justice Antonin Scalia
U.S. Supreme Court
June 26, 2008
District of Columbia v. Heller
Emphasis added.
The essence of this quote was repeated in the Bruen decision. This is very important.
The gun grabbers get attention by claiming the sky is falling because “gun violence” is increasing and yet the states must “let” people get concealed carry licenses and carry guns in public. Never mind that the people with licenses to carry are not committing the violent crimes and the gun grabbers include the legal shootings of violence criminals in their statistics. They claim justification in banning the most common rifle in the country because, well, some sort of “reason”.
They claim there must be a balancing between the literal words of the Second Amendment and public safety hence they can impose whatever restriction eases the torment in their twisted and/or evil minds. But, as stated in Heller, and repeated in Bruen, the balancing was done at the time of the writing of the Second Amendment. The highest court in the land has now repeatedly stated, in essence, “There will be no more means-end balancing act to make an end run around the literal words of the Second Amendment.”
Our opponents apparently cannot comprehend this and/or think if they keep repeating themselves and whining the court will change its mind. Surely, they claim, another school shooting (in a “gun free zone”) will be sufficient justification to ban more guns and from more locations.
No, the court has spoken, there is no crime which can justify an infringement. Scary black rifles will not be legally removed from public access to ease your troubled mind. All that balancing was over long before you were born.
What part of “shall not be infringed” don’t you understand?
I’m amazed that Scalia concocted words out of thin air when he spoke of imaginary exceptions to the 1st Amendment.
It seems to me that gun laws, first, assume that you’re going to do something criminal.
Where all criminal acts that one can do with a gun are already illegal and punishable upon commitment.
A law against possession is punishment when no crime has been committed. An assumption that nothing else but crime can be done with such object.
To me, that seems an important distinction.
That assumption cuts completely again all doctrines of freedom.
If one has a hard time understanding the difference between libel and slander laws. And 1A free speech. Your far to ignorant to be in the discussion.
Wouldn’t every politician in the world love to pass a law that you can talk bad about them?
It’s the same with guns. And communist crap-talk isn’t going to change the fact that gun laws are presumption of guilt without proof.
It’s an iron-clad rule of our system that “proponent of jurisdiction has the burden of proof”. I do not have to prove my innocents, you have to prove my guilt.
Sorry, communist bad feelz is not proof anyone has committed a crime.
I saw an interesting analysis (possibly here, I don’t remember) likening “gun control” laws to the “Heckler’s Veto”.
A Heckler’s Veto, for those unaware, is where a person or group attempts to stifle someone’s free speech by shouting them down, rioting, or otherwise interfering with the free exercise of their First-Amendment-protected rights.
And at no point in history has a Heckler’s Veto been Constitutionally-valid. One person’s or group’s free speech rights end where they implicate or interfere with someone else’s equal free speech rights. Assuming a public space, your right to not listen or hear what they have to say means YOU leave the area, not that THEY have to.
And yet, universities across the nation are citing the threat of riots and mob/group violence as reasons to cancel invited speakers’ events. In effect, the possibility of one group’s criminal activity is being used to interfere with someone else’s Constitutionally-protected rights.
What’s interesting about this is, that’s how “gun control” works, too. The possibility of criminal behavior from one small group — in this case, violent criminals and mass shooters — is being used as justification for stifling someone else’s Constitutionally-protected rights.
It’s a Heckler’s Veto of gun ownership and possession.
And this Heckler’s Veto is no more Constitutionally-valid than the ones against free speech.
Great analysis!
Mind if I steal this and quote it on Gab?
Please do!