Henry (replying to Jon) wrote:
> I don't see how the "shall not be infringed" concept can be sensibly > interpreted as an "absolute" right. > > To take an extreme example - would this mean that convicts have the > RKBA while in prison? The boundary is (and IMHO should be) between prior-restraint (unreasonable) and disablement via due process (reasonable). > I don't thing that any court or reasonable (sensible?) person is going > to say that. If I'm correct, then the right can't be considered > to be absolute. An absolute right for the "virtuous citizen" model seems to be conceptually viable, though in this age it may not be politically possible. This circles back the typical pro-gun arguments -- "Do you care if your neighbor owns a howitzer as long as he doesn't lob shells into your living room for fire it after 10PM?" A virtuous citizen needs no restraint ... > Which, of course, makes things much more complicated. But we've coped > with the "falsely shout Fire in a crowded theater", and I expect we can > also cope with the fuzzy line in this context - although it may take > more court cases. The "shouting fire in a crowded theater" example hits the mark given that there are many situations where you can legally do so (http://www.gunfacts.info/notes/fire.html). Only when behavior become endangering to others does a reasonable regulation come into play. This is where I get worried. Anything less than a strict scrutiny standard invites every judicial mischief possible, and will cause crime statistics (and their misrepresentation) to become the justification for prior-restraints. The Brady Campaign certain believes this, given this snippet from their fund raising email of this morning: However, it was clear to me from both questions and answers at the Supreme Court hearing that there is broad support from all sides for responsible regulation concerning guns. We need to stress this position to the American public before and after the decision is made in late June. We are hopeful that the Justices' ruling will uphold the right of people in communities like the District of Columbia to enact sensible gun laws they feel are needed to protect themselves and their families. Even if the District's ordinance is struck down, and regardless of how the Justices rule on the individual's "right" to bear arms, their questioning clearly acknowledged the importance of and the need for reasonable regulations on guns. Yours in Liberty Guy Smith www.GunFacts.info <http://www.gunfacts.info/>
_______________________________________________ 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.
