Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: First Amendment win for Second Amendment cause

  1. #1
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682

    First Amendment win for Second Amendment cause

    http://azcourts.gov/Portals/0/Opinio...%2012-0878.pdf

    City of Pheonix AZ first accepted, then rejected, ads at bus stops for firearm training (along with a lot of editorial comment). City of Pheonix gets spanked - hard.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  2. #2
    Regular Member fjpro2a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    300

    Excellent

    This is an example of baby steps. But, baby steps are an excellent tool now and then. Baby steps require a lifelong commitment to a just cause. Let's go for big victories, but never overlook the small, but important baby steps.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Except that is not why the court reversed ... free speech? He complied with the ad requirements was the decision by the court and as long as he "adequately displayed" an ad, the other speech issues were irrelevant. And the court ruled that the other speech, sans the ad wording, could not be used as a reason not to display the ad.

    It does not mean that you can have an ad that just says "guns save lives" and demand that they accept the posting. You can have the wording in your ad but you must still show an actual ad for product or services in the ad.

    This one got lucky because they changed the law .... if the law was not changed, he'd be on the losing side.

    They asked for the ad to be accepted in 2010 .. the law was changed in 2011. So he got to argue 2011 law as well as 2010.

  4. #4
    Activist Member JamesCanby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Alexandria, VA at www.NoVA-MDSelfDefense.com
    Posts
    1,543
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    Except that is not why the court reversed ... free speech? He complied with the ad requirements was the decision by the court and as long as he "adequately displayed" an ad, the other speech issues were irrelevant. And the court ruled that the other speech, sans the ad wording, could not be used as a reason not to display the ad.

    It does not mean that you can have an ad that just says "guns save lives" and demand that they accept the posting. You can have the wording in your ad but you must still show an actual ad for product or services in the ad.

    This one got lucky because they changed the law .... if the law was not changed, he'd be on the losing side.

    They asked for the ad to be accepted in 2010 .. the law was changed in 2011. So he got to argue 2011 law as well as 2010.
    What you wrote may be true, but IMHO this will still be seen as a win for Gun Rights. Most people will not be able to separate the content of the ad from the technical requirements, and very few people (or 'journalists') actually understand the legal issues.

    Can you not agree that this is a win?
    Air Force Veteran
    NRA Life Member
    VCDL Member
    NRA Certified Chief Range Safety Officer
    NRA Certified Instructor: Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, Home Firearm Safety, Personal Protection
    Maryland Qualified Handgun Instructor
    Certified Instructor, Associated Gun Clubs of Baltimore, Inc.
    Member, Mt. Washington Rod & Gun Club
    National Sporting Clays Association Certified Referee

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by JamesCanby View Post
    What you wrote may be true, but IMHO this will still be seen as a win for Gun Rights. Most people will not be able to separate the content of the ad from the technical requirements, and very few people (or 'journalists') actually understand the legal issues.

    Can you not agree that this is a win?
    It certainly is a win for the one who wished to post the ad for the ad that they wanted to post. And the ad will contain a positive pro-gun message.

    They may just change the law back too .. and then the win is still a win but no one that can be duplicated.

    Almost any ad can be politicized..an ad for an abortion clinic services is certainly implying that abortions are good.

    So a win for folks who want to give political opinion within ads? Right now, a win, and the court seems to give a blue print on how to make this within the law...so the court memo was very nice in that respect.

    The court did not rule that one could take out an ad just to advertise a political viewpoint (almost bound by previous law) so if the petitioners feel like its a an actual of desired "win" is a question. When they wanted the ad, the law was 100% against them and it was only the change in the law that got them a win. I don't think that the petitioners wanted a win like this but a win where political ads were OK and could not be denied.

    So, as the law stands now, it seems easy to make them take a political statement contained within an ad. But they can change the law and remove this tomorrow if they wanted to.

    So a "win" is in the eyes of the parties. I have "won" civil cases and felt like I lost and I have lost cases and felt like I've won. It depends on what is trying to be accomplished I guess.

    I see the result as a tie myself.

  6. #6
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    David's analysis is correct (if lacking in refinement).

    It may be a "win", but only barely. And it's not a win for "gun rights" or "free speech". It's a win against a single imbecilic decision by particularly imbecilic bureaucracy.

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by fjpro2a View Post
    This is an example of baby steps.
    True. I, however, prefer the slingshot approach, baby and all. Let them "learn on the fly," as it were.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •