Attorneys aren't experts on whether a post harm remedy is one imposed after the harm occurs. Demanding or offering evidence of expertise where expertise isn't at issue is a relevance error, an appeal to authority where the appeal is irrelevant, precisely the fallacy you describe.
The Unlimited Right to Bear Arms
- Thread starter Anchorblew
- Start date
Attorneys aren't experts on whether a post harm remedy is one imposed after the harm occurs. Demanding or offering evidence of expertise where expertise isn't at issue is a relevance error, an appeal to authority where the appeal is irrelevant, precisely the fallacy you describe.
Spats McGee
Administrator
Just a gentle reminder that the original topic of this thread was The Unlimited Right to Bear Arms, not the nature or applicability of various logical fallacies.
So with that said, here's the first thing that struck me:
So with that said, here's the first thing that struck me:
Last I checked, felons lost their right to vote, too. (Clearly, though, not their right to a fair trial.)Joseph J. Ellis said:
The Constitution doesn't discuss a "right to vote" until the 15th Amendment in 1870 and no where does it say that right is forfeit for conviction of a crime.
specifically it says, in toto;
Section 1.
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Section. 2.
The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation
Come to think of it there is no such limitation of the 2nd Amendment, either. - I think the phrase there is "shall not be infringed".
(btw: I saw in other posts mention that in some states you can't posses ammunition with out a Firearm Owners ID card or a CHL - that seem pretty infringy to me, seem that way to anyone else?)
specifically it says, in toto;
Section 1.
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Section. 2.
The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation
Come to think of it there is no such limitation of the 2nd Amendment, either. - I think the phrase there is "shall not be infringed".
(btw: I saw in other posts mention that in some states you can't posses ammunition with out a Firearm Owners ID card or a CHL - that seem pretty infringy to me, seem that way to anyone else?)
Beagle45ACP
New member
Yeah, I live in Illinois (your pity is welcome) and we have to have a FOID card. Growing up, I didn't think that it was all that strange, and kind of assumed all states operated that way. Now that I'm older, I really, really, hate the FOID card system. I'm sure someone can find some merit in it, but all I see is another fee I have to pay the state every x number of years.
People tell me that, "the FOID shows that I'm able to purchase and own a firearm," um, doesn't the NICS phone call take care of that? "Well, if the police pull you over, and you tell them you have a gun, it lets them know that you're not a felon or something like that," if the police pull me over, they're most likely going to run my driver's license, at which time they'll be able to figure out whether or not I'm a felon, and if I am a felon, I probably won't tell the police that I have a gun on me/in the car in the first place, so they would have no reason to ask for the FOID card.
Sorry about all that, rant over now.
Seeker said:
The Fifth amendment reads,
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Emphasis added.
It appears fair to conclude that a person may be deprived a liberty with due process of law.
But that process isn't specifically focused on whether a person should retain a right to vote or keep and bear arms. (one might respond)
The little word "due" does carry a lot in that amendment.
On the issue of prior restraints on speech, a friend from the local chapter of the Federalists knocked a memory loose at lunch today.
Jonathan Adler made a vigorous argument for repeal of the Espionage Act on the ground that it cannot be squared with the First Amendment in a truly principled way because the act does provide for and has been used to prohibit publication.
Jonathan Adler made a vigorous argument for repeal of the Espionage Act on the ground that it cannot be squared with the First Amendment in a truly principled way because the act does provide for and has been used to prohibit publication.
Josesph Ellis article said:
Thats a nice touchy feely load of crap Mr Ellis, but you've forgotten something...
"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither.” Benjamin Franklin
As for this thread...
With 7 posts you clearly have not hung around here long enough... there are plenty of those guys in these parts.
(But I doubt any of them would want a parolee with a violent crime history moving in next to them AND being able to go to BassPro and buy a fresh .45 all in the same day.)
No, its not heavily regulated compared to a vast number of other industries... Nuclear, aviation and trucking are just a few truly heavily regulated industries that come to mind.
Many of your so-called sensible regulations are, in fact, not sensible... they may seem so at a glance, but when looked at objectively they hold little water and will have no positive effect on public safety.
These new proposed laws are routinely conceived by those who profess to understand a problem. They don’t, and never will.
For example, "Assault weapons". With a little practice a guy with a traditional looking Remington 750 can wipe out just as many people as a guy with a AR-10. The difference? Functionally there is none.. they both shoot the same ammo. The difference is how the gun LOOKS. (Google the images for both)
Stevie-Ray
New member
I must agree, WHOLEHEARTEDLY.
I must disagree wholeheartedly.
Many have "paid" for their crime but they are FAR from "rehabilitated".
Research recidivism rates, its appallingly high, north of 40%!
Sure, lets let them buy guns easily
There is no such thing as a convicted felon being a "free" citizen, they're haunted by it to the end.
Three-strikes laws
Sex offender registration
No firearms
Disqualified from many avenues of employment
Branded by lousy prison tatoos
This goes on and on...Not being able to own firearms is just one of the many side effects from wandering so far outside of the law.
And by the way... they're not paying for their crime... we are, to the tune of ~$30000 to 45000 bucks a year each.
The list of free things provided to these "un-free" people is sickening.
Chain gangs should be revived as far as I'm concerned... maybe then we'd get some value out of these otherwise useless parasites.
AFTER they've paid the honest hard working tax payers back, maybe... just maybe... they'll be square.
Last edited:
Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
While I would agree that a great many violent criminals should never see daylight again, I've never understood the argument that they've "paid" for their crime because we let them out of jail.
That argument would seem to say that prison time is the one and only penalty/payment. It really doesn't make sense. Some people get jail time, community service, fines, rehab and many combinations thereof. If they're sentenced to 3 of those and they complete 2 they haven't "paid" for their crime. They have more to pay.
Some crimes are punishable by life in prison. They don't serve 10 years and get to claim that they've "paid" for their crime. The "payment" is life in prison.
If the sentence (payment) for a crime is 10 years AND lifetime firearms prohibition, they haven't paid for their crime when they get out of prison. There's more to pay.
Maybe they shouldn't be let out at all and you'd rarely get an argument from me in any sort of violent crime scenario but getting out is not the end of paying for the crime.
That argument would seem to say that prison time is the one and only penalty/payment. It really doesn't make sense. Some people get jail time, community service, fines, rehab and many combinations thereof. If they're sentenced to 3 of those and they complete 2 they haven't "paid" for their crime. They have more to pay.
Some crimes are punishable by life in prison. They don't serve 10 years and get to claim that they've "paid" for their crime. The "payment" is life in prison.
If the sentence (payment) for a crime is 10 years AND lifetime firearms prohibition, they haven't paid for their crime when they get out of prison. There's more to pay.
Maybe they shouldn't be let out at all and you'd rarely get an argument from me in any sort of violent crime scenario but getting out is not the end of paying for the crime.
when this document was written, every able bodied male citizen between 16 and 60 was the militia. They had training requirements, equipment mandates. Sure it was before the modern military system but it worked. And it was why we ending up being able to survive the revolution. It was the only reason we had a revolution.
At the same time, the criminal system was still based on common sense and morals. and good family values.
in 1760 if a person went to the tarvern and drank 12 pints of ale, went home got an axe and killed the neighbor and his wife and 6 kids. If he wasnt hung by the angry mob, hed stand trial and would be hung within 3 business days.
now in these times people smoke a joint, drop some acid, and merely recieve life in prison for the vary same crime. because 'death penalties are inhumane and deprive the criminal who brutally killed a family of 6 of their own civil rights"
At the same time, the criminal system was still based on common sense and morals. and good family values.
in 1760 if a person went to the tarvern and drank 12 pints of ale, went home got an axe and killed the neighbor and his wife and 6 kids. If he wasnt hung by the angry mob, hed stand trial and would be hung within 3 business days.
now in these times people smoke a joint, drop some acid, and merely recieve life in prison for the vary same crime. because 'death penalties are inhumane and deprive the criminal who brutally killed a family of 6 of their own civil rights"
Stevie-Ray
New member
You're just not getting it. Why are they being let out? Why aren't they getting stiffer sentences? Overcrowding? Tough. Put 4 guys in a single cell with one bunk and let them fight over who gets it-that'll free up some room. That's prison. It's not supposed to be a country club. Make more of them pay with their lives. Workable death penalties are long overdue. Prisoners are coddled today, for God's sake, that's why so many return. Prison reform? That's laughable. Why don't all these prison reformers just let the prisoners stay in their basements if they feel for them so much?
I get it all just fine... I put "paid" in quotation marks, as in thats what we're supposed to think has happened.
Over-crowding and prisoner treatment has all been covered by the courts many times.
In the end I dont care if they have met someones philosophical notion of just punishment, we do have two classes of citizens, like it or not.. felons and non-felons... no guns for felons.
Last edited:
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
We are wandered off track. Fantasy prison systems are not our concern in this thread.
So it seems to be over unless we get back on track.
So it seems to be over unless we get back on track.
Unfortunately it's comes down to the fact that it's not the constitution which determines law but those seated on the U.S. Supreme Court who interpret it. Recent Supreme Court decisions can be overturned by future justices. We're only a liberal Supreme Court judge or two away from catastrophe.
My credentials are undergrad and grad print reporting degrees from 30 years ago which involved over a half dozen grad level courses dealing with US press law. As well as some direct observations in libel case that was tried in both the US and the UK from that time that were central to my peer reviewed grad thesis. I also worked for a decade in Europe for two major US news gathering outfits in Europe and had to be aware of the very different press laws. That included the gamut from criminal libel (including libeling a state laws that were still present in several European countries). I am not an attorney but someone with some academic and professional background and fairly good academic understanding of serious differences in press freedom in various western democratic countries that extended into my early professional career.
I worked in EC countries with criminal libel, prior restraint, slander against the state laws, some vestigial and some enforced. Since our work was cross boundary with publication both in the US and in those countries we had to be aware of the both laws and very different conceptual framework on which they were based.
Personally I don't consider anyone who is an attorney but not a press law attorney any expert either. I don't want to get confrontational, but several of the cases here mentioned are being presented seriously out of context.
And respectfully, "generally" is not correct on libel and slander harms in the US. It is always. Harm is a core element without which there is no case. Harm must always be proven, or already part of a limited set of presumed harms (alleging criminal conduct for example does not require complainant proving harm, since the harm can be assumed by precedent.)
And I am unproved by examples of mutual consent secrecy or NDAs? Can we see those as analogous when they when there is a willing non compelled exchange of benefit?
The only examples given in valid retort to my point, are the muddy parade permit examples. I agree those are muddy. The defendants in those cases are arguing from a public safety issue arising from safe capacity of a space and traffic disruption -- although in quite a few of those cases I will agree that it seems the speech itself is what is the unsaid initiating factor in denial.
No because there is a mutual non-compelled agreements.
I am sorry if my comments seemed confrontational
But did I ask about the professional press law credentials of the person claiming that libel and slander are analogs to fourth amendment limits being discussed? That is so out in left field that if made by a person claiming expertise, one would say the credentials, even if present, are void. It certainly a problem with understanding of US of press and speech law.
Comparing libel and slander to regulations on purchase, possession, storage, etc of firearms is utterly and completely a false analogy.
A correct analogy would be comparing libel and slander, arising from use of free speech, to shooting and harming someone.
We were not discussing potential fourth amendment protection arising from a shooting.
I think you have to look at how the ACLU deals with this. They do not apply the analogies attempted by the OP because they do not stand up.
They know they must, and they do, attack the fourth by directly defining as non individual and solely collective.
Last edited:
Aguila Blanca
Staff
Whoa! Obviously, I stayed away from this discussion too long. (Accident, not choice.)Nathan said:
Speak for yourself, please.
Where is it that "the gun guys" agree that we should not be able to own WMDs? I never agreed to that, and I think I'm more or less a "gun guy." I think I should be allowed to own a Ma Deuce, an Abrams tank, or an F-15 fighter aircraft, with all the armaments appropriate to each platform. At the start of the American Revolution, much of the colonial artillery was privately owned. Why shouldn't I be able to own today's equivalent? Especially if we accept the idea that the (or one of the) underlying intent of the 2A was to ensure that the populace, the citizenry, was armed sufficiently to be equal or superior in firepower to any standing army the government might muster.
I respectfully submit that you are seeing agreement where there is none.
Last edited:
Frank Ettin
Administrator
What we've been discussing really isn't arcane stuff. It's pretty much basic Bar Exam material.TDL said:
The First Amendment isn't just about the press. It protects the freedom of all manner of speech (subject to judicially permitted regulation), including commercial speech and artistic speech. It protects the right of assembly and has been held to protect the freedom of association.
And while the press has some special protections insulating it from liability associated with defamation claims (New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964)), it's not only the press which has potential exposure to defamation claims. Non-press actors won't have the New York Times Co. v. Sullivan protections.
So your experience as:
First, presumed harm is not actual harm. There are types of defamation for which actual harm need not be shown, e. g., false accusation of sexual misconduct, false accusation of criminal acts, false accusation immorality in business, etc.TDL said:
Second, my use of "generally" refers to timing -- as should be obvious to you from the statement of mine you quoted. In any case, there is some authority for the use of injunctions as remedy in a defamation case (Aguilar v. Avis Rent A Car System, Inc., 87 Cal.Rptr.2d 132, 21 Cal.4th 121, 980 P.2d 846 (Cal., 1999)).
In any case, the discussion of First Amendment jurisprudence is merely for the limited purpose of demonstrating that the courts do permit limited regulation of a constitutionally protected right. There are numerous examples of laws sustained by the courts which abridge freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of association, and freedom of religion. And First Amendment jurisprudence also offers some clues as to how such regulations will be evaluated by the courts. We can not expect perfect correspondence between the regulation of rights protected by the First Amendment and the regulation of rights protected by the Second Amendment; but we can expect some regulation of Second Amendment rights to be upheld by the courts.
Last edited: