No right is absolute
After the conclusion of Heller, I’m sure there will be some language regarding reasonable regulations and such. So, what are those? Well, I think it should be illegal to shoot people. Some, however, think a total ban is reasonable.
November 28th, 2007 at 11:11 am
If the court recognizes an individual right, it will come down to the test the court chooses in enforcing it against governmental restrictions. Before 1992, the test was strict scrutiny and the government had to demonstrate a very strong governmental interest. In Planned Parenthood v. Casey, however, three Justices came up with the “undue burden” test which was broadly denounced as “statist” regardless on which side of the abortion issue you’re on. It is not really a test — it is a license for the Court to rule according to its whimsy in any particular case before it. Two of those Justices, Kennedy and Souter, are still on the court.
November 28th, 2007 at 12:52 pm
Are you being sarcastic? I think the law should be expanded to allow for more uses of legal deadly force.
November 28th, 2007 at 6:32 pm
The “Reasonable Restrictions” argument is dead in the water if only we think about it.
The “Fire!” in a crowded theater meme is the oft given example to a “Reasonable Restriction” on free speech. Its childish and ridiculous. Either A. There really is a fire and so yelling “Fire” would be a public service, or B. There is no fire, you know that, and so yelling “Fire” you are committing a malicious fraud.
The Second Amendment does not protect a “right” to commit armed assault or robbery or murder any more than the First Amendment protects a “right” to commit fraud or liable.
Hence, there are “Reasonable Restrictions” on malicious acts but not on rights.
Don’t ever accept those stupid “RR” arguments again. They’re a silly trick.
There are in fact “Reasonable Restrictions” on government. They are outlined in the Constitution if you’re interested.
November 28th, 2007 at 8:01 pm
Lyle, you may very well be wasting your electrons. Too many of us desire to be liked and viewed as “reasonable” more than we desire to be respected as intelligent and principled, hence, in too large numbers we surrender to “reasonable restrictions” on rights, which of course means we surrender the right.
It is the herding instinct. Somehow, despite all the evidence to the contrary we tend to feel safer in a crowd, even if we must deny our absolute rights to do so. Much as any sheep or cow in a large flock or herd gains emotional comfort while being sent up the chute to the slaughterhouse.
November 28th, 2007 at 8:01 pm
Lyle, you may very well be wasting your electrons. Too many of us desire to be liked and viewed as “reasonable” more than we desire to be respected as intelligent and principled, hence, in too large numbers we surrender to “reasonable restrictions” on rights, which of course means we surrender the right.
It is the herding instinct. Somehow, despite all the evidence to the contrary we tend to feel safer in a crowd, even if we must deny our absolute rights to do so. Much as any sheep or cow in a large flock or herd draws emotional comfort while being sent up the chute to the slaughterhouse.