Heller - 'arms in common civilian use'

The difficulty for everyone is the Court will rule a line somewhere- but where.
Click to expand...

Indeed. And the discussion during oral arguments repeatedly returned to some variation of 'arms in common civilian use.'

Thus, back to the question in the OP. If the standard becomes 'arms in common civilian use' can the arms used by civilian police fall within that standard?
 
Libel is not a limit on speech. It is a limit on harming another
Click to expand...

That is not true. It is a regulation on free speech driven by a greater public need. Just like yelling fire in the theater. You can write bad things about people that harm them greatly if it is true and they can do nothing about it.

Thus, back to the question in the OP. If the standard becomes 'arms in common civilian use' can the arms used by civilian police fall within that standard?
Click to expand...

Hard to tell what they would do with that. Maybe another lawsuit but I could see them ruling that the ploice is more military than civilian and so allow restriction.
 
I could see them ruling that the police is more military than civilian and so allow restriction.
Click to expand...

I would love to see the mental gymnastics necessary to reach that conclusion. :D Then again, it might be interesting to see the police under the type of tight constraints posed by the UCMJ.
 
Quote:
Libel is not a limit on speech. It is a limit on harming another
Click to expand...
That is not true. It is a regulation on free speech driven by a greater public need. Just like yelling fire in the theater. You can write bad things about people that harm them greatly if it is true and they can do nothing about it.
Click to expand...

Wrong. It's a civil tort, and have you ever tried to win a libel case? You can yell fire in a theater all you want, there is no prior restraint. You can be punished for any harm you cause but you will not be prevented from doing it.
 
Ah, then so we have reached the conclusion that the news should be forced to refrain from acknowledging mass killings because it has indeed caused harm to the public--directly contributed to deaths, no less. Sounds good enough to me. I think at very least it is unethical in that it exploits the carnage for profit. How that is not ruled by society as being utterly deplorable escapes me. They make oil companies out to be the antichrist for gouging people at the gas pump for paying $10 more on a tank of gas, but CNN making billion dollar paydays on mass murder gets no such complaints.
 
The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence said it understands the moves to assault weapons. "Police officers need to be able to defend themselves and the rest of us, and they need the weapons to do so," said spokesman Peter Hamm.
Click to expand...



If the police need them, well so do I, and MORE so. Since I will be in front of the fan when it hits, while the police are just getting the call to approach said fan.
 
That is not true. It is a regulation on free speech driven by a greater public need. Just like yelling fire in the theater. You can write bad things about people that harm them greatly if it is true and they can do nothing about it.
Click to expand...

Libel is a law regulating free speech which spells out the punishment for the actual action of committing libel. Laws against libel do not infringe upon free speech by taking away writing instruments, or regulating the possession of computers, printers, video recorders, audio recorders, pens and pencils, etc.

This is similar to a law that says you cannot indescriminantly discharge a firearm within city limits. Such a law is constitutional and is a public safety regulation. However, such a law does not prevent one from possessing a firearm within the city limits or discharging a firearm for self defense. It would also not include discharging a firearm in performance of official "militia" duties. Even you have to be able to see the difference between libel laws and gun bans or heavy gun restrictions. The latter have nothing to do with actual crimes being committed if they are about mere possession. I can possess a computer with no danger of me committing libel. I can possess a firearm, including a select fire weapon, with no danger of me committing a bank robbery or a murder, or even endangering my next door neighbor.
 
Neither libel nor slander are infringements of free speech by government. They are causes of action of private individuals.
 
You can yell fire in a theater all you want, there is no prior restraint. You can be punished for any harm you cause but you will not be prevented from doing it.
Click to expand...

Yeah there is prior restraint in the laws that forbid it. Just like calling in false 911 calls. The punishment comes after the fact and may be criminal.

I repeat every right in the BOR is limited and none are absolute.
 
You can yell fire in a theater all you want, there is no prior restraint. You can be punished for any harm you cause but you will not be prevented from doing it.
Click to expand...

OK, I may concede that although I have heard Judges use it as an example of the limits of free speech. Perhaps the yelling fire example is better than libel but we are dillying around. My point is that all the rights of the BOR are limited and none are absolute. Including the 2A.
 
Last edited:
It's sad that most politicians don't live in the real world. To believe that criminals will stop using their handguns if handguns are outlawed shows what kind of nuts the people elect. And that makes the people nuts, too. Nuts!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top