Well -- the statements are close, but there are some essential differences of nuance.
Schumer says "Just as you can't falsely shout fire in a crowded movie theater, you can put restrictions on who can own guns and how, when, and where they may be possessed." Notice the shift in person with "you" referring to two different persons/groups. The effect of that shift is to make uncertain what the second you means -- Congress, State legislatures, individual business owners, .... Notice that he says "you can't falsely shout fire ..." when, I'm sure, he is not talking about prior restraint such as gagging felons who go to the movies to prevent them from doing such a thing -- he is talking about penalizing people who falsely shout fire after the event. In the case of gun ownership, he is talking prior restraint. Schumer is also talking about more than restrictions on ownership, but including when, where and how firearms may be possessed. Ashcroft suffers no shift in person in his statement "the individual rights view of the Second Amendment does not prohibit Congress from enacting laws restricting firearms ownership for compelling state interests ... just as the First Amendment does not prohibit [government from legislating against] shouting 'fire' in a crowded movie theater. Nor does Ashcroft mention laws restricting when, where and how firearms may be possessed. Now, these differences may seem small (certainly within the differences that could be attributed to colloquial and sloppy use in common speaking), but it is possible there are significant differences. Then, it is also possible that one [or both] of these two is lying about what he really means and that we should look more at their actions [speak louder than words]. Phil > > 1. "The broad principle that there is an individual right to bear arms > is shared by many Americans, including myself. I'm of the view that you > can't take a broad approach to other rights, such as First Amendment > rights, and then interpret the Second Amendment so narrowly that it > could fit in a thimble. But I'm also of the view that there are limits > on those rights. Just as you can't falsely shout fire in a crowded movie > theater, you can put restrictions on who can own guns and how, when, and > where they may be possessed." > > ___ Sen. Charles Schumer > > > 2. "While some have argued that the Second Amendment guarantees only a > 'collective' right of the States to maintain militias, I believe the > Amendment's plain meaning and original intent prove otherwise. Like the > First and Fourth Amendments, the Second Amendment protects the rights of > 'the people,' which the Supreme Court has noted is a term of art that > should be interpreted consistently throughout the Bill of Rights. ... Of > course, the individual rights view of the Second Amendment does not > prohibit Congress from enacting laws restricting firearms ownership for > compelling state interests ... just as the First Amendment does not > prohibit [government from legislating against] shouting 'fire' in a > crowded movie theater. " > > ___ Attorney General John Ashcroft > > > Second Amendment "pragamatists" can be switch-hitters. > > ****************************************** > Professor Joseph Olson; J.D., LL.M. > Hamline University School of Law > St. Paul, Minnesota 55104-1284 > tel. (651) 523-2142 > fax. (651) 523-2236 > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > -- The Art of war is simple enough. Find out where your enemy is. Get at him as soon as you can. Strike at him as hard as you can and as often as you can, and keep moving on. -- Ulysses S. Grant _______________________________________________ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
