37
by CDFingers
Comparing gun laws with the First Amendment is a false equivalency, and I'll show you why. In the First, we find that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. When we examine "abridge," we see it means to shorten while retaining the essential meaning. This is why incitement to riot is not free speech, nor is lying about a fire in a theater, among other examples; foolishly, Citizens United decrees that money is free speech. When we examine the Second, we find that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. "Infringe" is a bit archaic, yet when we look it up, we find it means to break or to exceed the limits of. These two are not the same. Thus, a false equivalency, which is weak rhetorically.
Scalia wrote in Heller that the Second was not a right "to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose;” he determined that the Second does not prohibit all gun laws. Thus, gun laws are not unconstitutional. And our Federal system allows that the fifty states each may make laws, subject to review by the SCOTUS. I agree that California has gun laws which should be rescinded, and I've listed them before. Yet I do not find that those laws I'd like to see rescinded "break" or "exceed the limits" of the RKBA. An out right ban would do that. I predict that will never happen. Yet many find it fashionable to light their hair afire and run about aimlessly regarding an outright ban. I think that a waste of perfectly good photons.
To be able to have some guns but not others is a reality in many states like California. Prohibiting some guns but not others neither breaks nor exceeds the limits of the Second. Such laws may very well be foolish, like a ten day wait in California for a second or subsequent gun. Other foolish laws may easily be found, and we can work to rescind them if that floats our boats.
When we codify a Universal Background Check in order to prevent the legal purchase of guns by those who should not have them due to criminal and violent history; when we employ Red Flag Laws, with caveats to return guns under proper circumstances; when we impose age limits for gun purchases; when we impose safe storage laws--none of these break or exceed the limits of the Second, according to Heller. Some may be danged inconvenient, like safe storage laws. I mean, we'd like our groovy Winchester hanging above the fireplace. But our twelve year old might have pocketed a couple .30-30 rounds from the last range trip and could take that rifle and blast his neighbor who beat him in Call of Duty. This is why I maintain that unless you're carrying it, fondling it, or can see directly where it's stashed, that your guns should be locked up. In California we can't buy a gun unless we sign an affidavit that we have a safe or if we bring or buy a gun lock. And we have to pay a buck for a background check for every ammo purchase. We hates it but we pays it.
As has been shown on this board, the only absolute right in the Constitution is the right against self incrimination. All the others have been limited, either by the wording itself or by statute. That we may "want" a gun prohibited in California is most unfortunate. To whine that it's unconstitutional is weak. When we hold positions on controversial issues, we should learn of the strength of our positions. Holding demonstrably weak positions is part of life in America. We have to remember from our past that for about thirteen years, beer was prohibited. Oh, the humanity. We fixed it, yet other things still need fixing as we progress toward a more perfect union. Democracy is a messy business.
CDFingers
Crazy cat peekin' through a lace bandana
like a one-eyed Cheshire, like a diamond-eyed Jack