GFRA (Gun Freedom Restoration Act)

P

pittspilot

New member
The Democratic Congress in 1991-92 passed the RFRA (Religious Freedom Restoration Act) act to require states and the federal goverment to prove compelling need to infringe upon religious freedom. This was done in response to a Court Decision in Oregon regarding the religious use of peyote.

Now I'm thinking, how about we start GFRA under the same premise, I know major portions of RFRA were struck down, but if we can get a precedence in the judicial system that any violation of 2nd Amendment rights requires the triggering of strict scrutiny and requires the state to show Compelling need to restrict that right, we would win alot of the court battles. I need to plant this Idea in a fiercly pro-gun congressional legislater. Who should I send this too? I am in Kali, so someone close.

------------------
"Courage is rightly esteemed the first of human qualities...Because it is the quality that guarantees all others"

Winston S. Churchill

"The American Republic is finished when the congress realizes that it can bribe the people with the peoples money"

De Touqueville
 
There is NO compeling need to restrict a right, in anyway shape or form! peirod!

------------------
Dead [Black Ops]
 
I don't know about that. No right exists in isolation of others and yours end where mine begin, so ... be careful of those "absolute" statements. The only right we have that comes close is the right to survive. IMHO.
 
Now there's an idea. We can take a leaf out of the Planet of the Apes series and start a religion that adores guns and ...

Oh, well ... just one of those bright flashes between the ears that some of us more ripened folks have. :o
 
No right is absolute as recognised by the Courts. The first Amendment is restricted in that it does not cover Fighting words, or yelling fire in a crowded theater. Other then those cases the courts have made any goverment that wishes to restrict freedom of speech or practice of religion meet such a high burden that it is almost impossible for the governmant to restrict speech. I already know what some of you are going to say, that we do not have freedom of speech, diffirent argument.

Now if we could get the courts to look at 2nd amendment right like first amendment rights, we would be looking good.

I have just gotten sick of us being on defence. We have already lost so many of our rights that it is time to get some of them back, not only fight for those we have left.

[This message has been edited by pittspilot (edited September 03, 2000).]
 
To pick a nit that is most important to keep this stuff in focus ...

" ...first Amendment is restricted in that it does not cover ... yelling fire in a crowded theater."

Sure does IF there's a fire. The First, as with most other rights, can be abused. They should never be regulated PERIOD. Only when the right is abused should the system step in a jack ya up.

There's way too much emphasys on attempting to prevent so and so. Can't happen & shouldn't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top