The plaintiffs sought to invoke the First Amendment’s presumption against prior restraints — laws that impose hurdles on speech-related activities, such as licensing laws. They argued that just as the First Amendment generally forbids the government from requiring anyone to obtain a license before speaking, the Second Amendment also should forbid government from making individuals obtain licenses before exercising their fundamental right to “keep and bear arms.”Actually there is quite a bit of 1st Amendment analogizing, both here and in other cases. The key word is "wholesale." The judges said you cannot import those comparisons "wholesale into Second Amendment jurisprudence."
“We are hesitant to import substantive First Amendment principles wholesale into Second Amendment jurisprudence,” the appeals court panel wrote.
What's your opinion? Don't you wish the judges would rule on the car comparisons too?
Please leave a comment.
Doh! You mean this very common 2A argument by the gun guys, that there should be no restraints whatsoever on guns "just like free speech guaranteed by the 1A" isn't valid? Whatayaknow?
ReplyDeleteNo surprise here, since the 2A wasn't written as a no-holds-barred personal gun ownership piece of literature, but as a means by which a state could muster volunteers. But then, the gun guys live in their own little fantasy world about their interpretation of the 2A.
"But then, the gun guys live in their own little fantasy world about their interpretation of the 2A."
DeleteThat's the polar bear calling the sheep white. We are the ones who have actually read the Founder's intent and interpretations of the second amendment.
Wait for the appeal. Courts get things wrong all the time. That's why we have an appeals process, and that's why we have a legislative process to change the law.
ReplyDelete