Should there be prior restraints on 2A?

This is a discussion on Should there be prior restraints on 2A? within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Given that Heller has confirmed that 2A is an individual right , I am very confused by posts that I see here on defensivecarry.com, which ...

View Poll Results: Should there be prior restraints on 2A?

Voters
71. You may not vote on this poll
  • I feel the 2A is equal to all other individual rights in the Bill of Rights

    68 95.77%
  • I feel the 2A needs prior restraints. (See details below).

    3 4.23%
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 23

Thread: Should there be prior restraints on 2A?

  1. #1
    VIP Member
    Array DaveH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    SW Virginia
    Posts
    5,036

    Question Should there be prior restraints on 2A?

    Given that Heller has confirmed that 2A is an individual right, I am very confused by posts that I see here on defensivecarry.com, which seem to suggest that somehow 2A is a lesser individual right than others.

    OMHO, citizens have rights vs. subjects are granted privileges by their masters.

    I believe the RKBA is an inherent right – not a privilege. Also, I believe that 2A is/or should be equal to all other individual rights in the Bill of Rights – that’s to say that there should not be prior restraint on the RKBA -- e.g., no prior restrain such as “yes, but not here”, “yes, but not when”, “only if you prove you are worthy, first”, etc.

    However, in reading many posts here on DC, my opinion appears to be a minority opinion, if judged by volume.

    On the one hand, many applaud “constitutional carry.”—e.g., at http://www.defensivecarry.com/vbulle...ska-model.html 92.64% agreed with the idea of “constitutional carry.”

    On the other hand, many posters appear to want to see prior restraints on who can carry, prior restraints on when we can carry, prior restraints on where we are allowed to carry, etc.

    So, please answer this poll solely based on what you think the law of the land should be. (Please do not interject: 1) personal practices / what you would personally do -- given the freedom to do or not do things like carry and drink, carry without training/practice, etc or 2) this is what we do in "x" State).

    If you think there should be prior restraint on the RKBA for all citizens, please discuss, the whats and whys.
    Last edited by DaveH; May 4th, 2010 at 04:43 PM.
    Μολὼν λαβέ

    I'm just one root in a grassroots organization. No one should assume that I speak for the VCDL.

    I am neither an attorney-at-law nor I do play one on television or on the internet. No one should assumes my opinion is legal advice.

    Veni, Vidi, Velcro

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    VIP Member Array Hiram25's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Wyoming, DE
    Posts
    11,043
    I believe all American citizens should have RKBA, until they lose that privilege due to some action on their own part. (Convicted felons, mentally ill, dishonorable discharge from the US Military Services, etc.
    Hiram25
    You can educate ignorance, you can't fix stupid
    Retired DE Trooper, SA XD40 SC, S&W 2" Airweight
    dukalmighty & Pure Kustom Black Ops Pro "Trooper" Holsters, DE CCDW and LEOSA Permits, Vietnam Vet 68-69 Pleiku

  4. #3
    VIP Member
    Array DaveH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    SW Virginia
    Posts
    5,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Hiram View Post
    I believe all American citizens should have RKBA, until they lose that privilege due to some action on their own part. (Convicted felons, mentally ill, dishonorable discharge from the US Military Services, etc.
    Absolutely! Those are not prior restraints on everyone. They are post adjudication penalties for crimes by the individual resulting in the loss of rights for that individual.

    BTW -- I'd even agree to some TRO type loss, if there is a workable restoration process.
    Μολὼν λαβέ

    I'm just one root in a grassroots organization. No one should assume that I speak for the VCDL.

    I am neither an attorney-at-law nor I do play one on television or on the internet. No one should assumes my opinion is legal advice.

    Veni, Vidi, Velcro

  5. #4
    VIP Member Array packinnova's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    4,260
    May be in the minority, but not alone friend...
    "My God David, We're a Civilized society."

    "Sure, As long as the machines are workin' and you can call 911. But you take those things away, you throw people in the dark, and you scare the crap out of them; no more rules...You'll see how primitive they can get."
    -The Mist (2007)

  6. #5
    VIP Member Array Sheldon J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Battle Creek, Mi.
    Posts
    2,285
    Add one more to that list, Just as if you drive drunk you can loose your DL, get stupid and loose your right to carry guns too....

    However the law that deems home issues (domestic violence) a offense that removes a great many rights goes just a tad too far...

    Case in point I know of a fellow that was a LAPD police officer. Long day went home and was late for dinner when his wife threw something at him (bounced off his level II) for being tardy, his only offense was to turn her over his knee and give her a spanking, (which in some cases it could be considered fore play).... She filed charges, He lost his job and gun rights for that little act.....

    don't get me wrong, some cases of domestic violence are just and the person involved deserves what he may get... however in some cases the wrong judge and you with a bad lawer... there needs to be a time limit on such offenses.

    However WRT Ex cons, "can a leopard change its spots"...... nope and they should not be allowed to vote either.
    "The sword dose not cause the murder, and the maker of the sword dose not bear sin" Rabbi Solomon ben Isaac 11th century

  7. #6
    VIP Member Array Janq's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    6,781
    Other individual rights under go restriction and limitation as well including the commonly noted first.

    I'd had a conversation with my wife about this just lat week as related to not being allowed to write anything you want or make any sort of statement you wish without suffering censure or even legal action be it judicial or civil.

    She had wrongly thought that "freedom of speech" was universal and unlimited in the US.
    It is not, never has been and there are and have been many examples of how this is very much not true.

    Shoe Bomb Joke on Plane Lands Missouri Groom-to-Be in Jail ~ Wednesday, January 07, 2009

    Just sayin'...

    - Janq
    "Killers who are not deterred by laws against murder are not going to be deterred by laws against guns. " - Robert A. Levy

    "A license to carry a concealed weapon does not make you a free-lance policeman." - Florida Div. of Licensing

  8. #7
    Distinguished Member Array razor02097's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    1,974
    As Janq said there are limitations and restrictions to more amendments then the second...
    The freedom of speech is hindered if what you say is considered slander, racist, hate, whatever.

    The second amendment is limited in many ways just like the others. Such as you have age restrictions. Sure it would be nice to be able to have your CCW everywhere you go no matter what but... I doubt it will ever be that way simply because in reality the government says no...
    There is something about firing 4,200 thirty millimeter rounds/min that makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

  9. #8
    VIP Member
    Array DaveH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    SW Virginia
    Posts
    5,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Janq View Post
    Other individual rights under go restriction and limitation as well including the commonly noted first.

    I'd had a conversation with my wife about this just lat week as related to not being allowed to write anything you want or make any sort of statement you wish without suffering censure or even legal action be it judicial or civil.

    She had wrongly though the 'freedom of speech' was universal and unlimited in the US. It is not and there are and have been many examples of how this is very much not true.

    Wednesday, January 07, 2009
    Shoe Bomb Joke on Plane Lands Missouri Groom-to-Be in Jail

    - Janq
    But note, Janq & Razor, that this (and all others of which I am aware, save RKBA) are post violation adjudications of individual violators -- not prior restraint of a right on all citizens because someone might....

    IMHO, it is not a matter of going un-restriction or un-limitation but of any general prior restraint.

    IMHO, the "...1A does not give you the right...." type statement is an 'Imperfect or False Analogy" type of semantic error/logic error.

    The restraints to 1A are not prior-restraints. They don't tape your mouth shut as a condition of entering into crowded public place, because you might yell "fire" or when boarding a plane because you might make a bomb or hijacking joke on the plane. This and other restraints on 1A are post-violation penalties, either criminal or civil.

    There are already many similar post-violation restraints/penalties for inappropriate use of a firearm -- either criminal or civil, on the law books -- e.g., criminal statutes against murder, maiming, armed robbery, etc and civil recourse for injury, wrongful death, etc.

    My Op poll was focused on prior restraint on all -- not adjudicated penalties/restrictions on individual violators, including loss of the right by convicted criminals, severely mentally ill, etc.

    IMHO -- there is a big difference.
    Μολὼν λαβέ

    I'm just one root in a grassroots organization. No one should assume that I speak for the VCDL.

    I am neither an attorney-at-law nor I do play one on television or on the internet. No one should assumes my opinion is legal advice.

    Veni, Vidi, Velcro

  10. #9
    Member Array MSteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    414
    It's a right. It should be treated as an automatic right. It should only be infringed upon in very specific and well defined manners, e.g. convicted criminals not being allowed to carry, severely mentally ill not being allowed to carry, etc.
    I don't think any type of permit should be required to carry. I do support some type of instant, on the spot background check to rule out felons, etc, provided it is designed to not keep records of the check. i.e. gun dealer runs my name, it's clean, sells me the gun, the system saves no record of my name being searched or the gun being sold to me.
    I do believe that individual property owners should be able to prohibit carry on their property (excluding publicly accessible parking lots and the like). As much as I would not like it, I think it is an inherent right of a property owner.
    AlabamaConstitution of 1819: That every citizen has a right to bear arms in defence of himself and the state.
    The world doesn't owe you anything. It was here first.-Mark Twain
    "Life's tough. It's tougher if you're stupid."-John Wayne
    Sig P228; Micro Desert Eagle; S&W M&P Compact .357 sig

  11. #10
    Senior Member Array DPro.40's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    611
    I believe with out a doubt that the second amendment is equal to all other amendments. There are post which suggest the first amendment is not with out restrictions. I'd say we should all note that freedom comes with exercising some levels of common sense. You don't yell fire in a crowd and you don't talk about bombs on planes, trains or automobiles. This is only my opinion.
    Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.
    Ronald Reagan

  12. #11
    VIP Member Array packinnova's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    4,260
    Quote Originally Posted by razor02097 View Post
    As Janq said there are limitations and restrictions to more amendments then the second...
    The freedom of speech is hindered if what you say is considered slander, racist, hate, whatever.

    The second amendment is limited in many ways just like the others. Such as you have age restrictions. Sure it would be nice to be able to have your CCW everywhere you go no matter what but... I doubt it will ever be that way simply because in reality the government says no...
    I'm not so sure this is a valid argument. The limitations on the 1st such as you mentioned, are not really prior limitations of speech, but rather limitations of criminal actions. Our lawmakers have determined over many years that speech of "slander, racist, hate, whatever" origin falls under the category of injurious as in to cause harm to another.

    I don't necessarily agree with all of them, but that seems to be the reality to me anyway.

    You cause no one harm by simply the carrying of a firearm.

    Edit:
    Just to clarify for razor and others, I didn't intend for this response to come across as bashing in any way... I was just trying to turn the argument about the 1st vs the 2nd around and see it from another perspective so to speak. YOMV
    Last edited by packinnova; May 5th, 2010 at 04:32 PM.
    "My God David, We're a Civilized society."

    "Sure, As long as the machines are workin' and you can call 911. But you take those things away, you throw people in the dark, and you scare the crap out of them; no more rules...You'll see how primitive they can get."
    -The Mist (2007)

  13. #12
    Distinguished Member Array razor02097's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    1,974
    Quote Originally Posted by DaveH View Post
    But note, Janq & Razor, that this (and all others of which I am aware, save RKBA) are post violation adjudications of individual violators -- not prior restraint of a right on all citizens because someone might....

    IMHO, it is not a matter of going un-restriction or un-limitation but of any general prior restraint.

    IMHO, the "...1A does not give you the right...." type statement is an 'Imperfect or False Analogy" type of semantic error/logic error.

    The restraints to 1A are not prior-restraints. They don't tape your mouth shut as a condition of entering into crowded public place, because you might yell "fire" or when boarding a plane because you might make a bomb or hijacking joke on the plane. This and other restraints on 1A are post-violation penalties, either criminal or civil.

    There are already many similar post-violation restraints/penalties for inappropriate use of a firearm -- either criminal or civil, on the law books -- e.g., criminal statutes against murder, maiming, armed robbery, etc and civil recourse for injury, wrongful death, etc.

    My Op poll was focused on prior restraint on all -- not adjudicated penalties/restrictions on individual violators, including loss of the right by convicted criminals, severely mentally ill, etc.

    IMHO -- there is a big difference.
    I don't believe so.

    They don't control your gun any more then they control your mouth (no insult intended)... It is up to the individual whether or not to break the law. If you put it that way then all laws and restrictions are post restraint.

    you can carry a gun into a restricted zone you will be punished just like you can yell "bomb!" on a plane and get punished. That is putting it as simple as possible.


    To be honest I was skeptical even replying to this thread as I though it was a fishing net to catch any contradictory quotes in order to bash or discredit people's opinions on the alcohol carry thread.
    There is something about firing 4,200 thirty millimeter rounds/min that makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

  14. #13
    VIP Member Array zacii's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    arizona
    Posts
    3,749
    Absolutely no prior restraints.
    Trust in God and keep your powder dry

    "A heavily armed citizenry is not about overthrowing the government; it is about preventing the government from overthrowing liberty. A people stripped of their right of self defense is defenseless against their own government." -source

  15. #14
    VIP Member Array cmdrdredd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Posts
    2,037
    Only one answer. Without the Second Amendment, the other amendments don't mean a thing. You cannot defend your right to free speech if the government takes away the means to defend yourself.
    No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
    -Thomas Jefferson

    Laws are restrictive but sometimes necessary to maintain a civil society. Rights are nonrestrictive but are always necessary to maintain a free society.

  16. #15
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,656
    Didn't vote in the poll, and dang if I know. Clearly different states have come to very different conclusions on this. You have AK, AZ, Vermont with one viewpoint and New York, IL, WI, with a different viewpoint, and the rest fall somewhere in the middle, but most have some sort of prior restraint.

    It seems to me The Supremes are not going to interpret 2A as removing all prior restraints (they had their chance already).

    I am satisfied with the licensing system where I live, but I certainly understand how a "pure" literal interpretation of 2A would lead some to conclude that any prior restraint is wrong.

    If this were actually an easy issue it would have been settled long long ago, or the states would have come up with a fairly uniform set of laws instead of the wide variation.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Roanoke Times against Prior restraint?
    By DaveH in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: May 11th, 2010, 02:31 AM
  2. Restraints
    By LethalStang in forum Related Gear & Equipment
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: January 18th, 2010, 02:56 PM
  3. Carring In NC Prior to CCW Permit?
    By meatloaf in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: August 25th, 2008, 01:09 PM
  4. Finding prior service records
    By AFPowerGuy in forum Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: July 6th, 2008, 02:17 AM

Search tags for this page

guns and prior restraints

,

prior restraint in gun cases

Click on a term to search for related topics.