• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

OC as freedom of Speech?

zigziggityzoo

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Nov 28, 2008
Messages
1,543
Location
Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
imported post

I don't know if this has been discussed before...

Has anyone ever considered that Open Carry could be considered freedom of expression, which is an extension of the freedom of speech, similar to the black armbands college students wore during the Vietnam War?

It would seem like banning Open Carry would be violating both the First and Second Amendment. Thoughts?
 

diesel556

Lone Star Veteran
Joined
Nov 27, 2008
Messages
714
Location
Seattle-ish, Washington, USA
imported post

The fact that we have an amendment specifically for the RTKBA notwithstanding:

"
In 1968 in United States v. O'Brien, (4) while upholding a protester's conviction for burning his Selective Service draft card, the U.S. Supreme Court recognized symbolic speech as, "communication of ideas by conduct." (5) The Court pointed out, however, that a "limitless variety of conduct" (6) cannot be labeled speech just because the person acting wants to convey a message. In order to analyze the law prohibiting draft card burning, the Court devised a four-part test. The Court said restrictions on symbolic expression can only survive the O'Brien test if: [align=left] [/align] 1. The restriction is within the constitutional power of the government. [align=left] [/align] 2. The restriction furthers an important or substantial government interest. [align=left] [/align] 3. The government interest is unrelated to the suppression of free speech (content neutral). [align=left] [/align] 4. The incidental restriction on alleged First Amendment freedoms is no greater than is essential to the furtherance of that interest. (7)
"

- http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst;jsessionid=JTSGQ3ZnLJzvzZQWQ8GmGG9gG4x2kQkcLxXmgDcg6hzqzZcJJ4tm!1972610752?docId=5008155897

If you can prove that the restriction is not within the constitutional power of the government (2nd amendment) then why would you need to call on the 1st amendment?
 

AWDstylez

Banned
Joined
Jul 3, 2008
Messages
2,785
Location
, Connecticut, USA
imported post

zigziggityzoo wrote:
I don't know if this has been discussed before...


It has. In fact, the wording of the question was even identical. The search functionon this site sucks though, I so can't really blame you.
 

Hawkflyer

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
3,309
Location
Prince William County, Virginia, USA
imported post

This has come up before. Depending on where you argue the matter you might win but as has been pointed out, once you show that the restriction is outside the authority of the government you don't need TSA.

Of course I suppose you could always have a fold up sign handy in your back pocket to use while you demonstrate.:lol:

Regards
 
Top