Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 49

Thread: What do they REALLY mean by "Reasonable Restrictions"?

  1. #1
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Grennsboro NC
    Posts
    5,358

    What do they REALLY mean by "Reasonable Restrictions"?

    I think we all know what this means...

    We (the folks in the 2A movement) got hip to the phrase the "anti's" were using before:

    "We want to keep guns out of the hands of the wrong kinds of people"

    And we got COMPLETELY hip to what they mean when they say "the wrong kinds of people" and have been calling them out on the racist, classist sentiment that this phrase embodies.

    So apparently the "anti's" figured out that we had figured them out. They've stopped using that old phrase, and are now using a new phrase:

    "Reasonable Restrictions"

    And I'm sure we all know that this new phrase is just another name for the same old Jim Crow, racist classist attitude, meant to keep firearms out of the hands of the poor, the disenfranchised, the non-property-owners, and the non-white.

    It brings to mind the "reasonable restrictions" that were enacted for "health and hygiene" reasons in the early 20th century to prohibit African Americans, Hispanics, and Native Amercans from using the same swimming pools, drinking fountains, restrooms, and lunch counters as whites.

    I cannot understand how minority groups will put up with racist gun laws that are DESIGNED to disarm law-abiding minority citizens, while at the same time going ballistic over every perceived slight (real or imagined) in other venues.

    Helmke and Sugarmann need to be PUBLICLY called out for the racist, classist elitist scum they are. When the African American community starts to realise that EVERY TIME a new gun law passes, they are essentially being told by the government that they are STILL considered as "N!##%&$", perhaps then, they will stop drinking the anti-gun kool-aid...

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Lancaster County, PA
    Posts
    118
    It's quite simple, really. They go along with it because it's only disarming someone else. That's how anti gun laws have always passed and been tolerated, and largely how taxes are passed too, as it's someone else's rights and someone else's money that's being sacrificed. 1850's-1870's gun laws were tolerated because they were disarming blacks, so nobody who wasn't black objected at the time. In 1911 NY's Sullivan Law was tolerated because it was intended at the time only to disarm Italians, so anyone who wasn't Italian had no problem with it because it wasn't them. In 1934 the NFA which ostensibly disarmed mobsters, which since the public sees themselves as not, they had no problem with that either.

    Fast forward to today. Today, it is the same class or race based hate simply channeled in a different direction. Gun ownership is the new villain for society lacking a moral basis since the 1960's, before which they could rely on actual standards of right and wrong. Now it's conservatives who are being disarmed, they think, which they are not. Gun owners, which they being city people are not. Or rednecks, which they are not. Or racists (by their definition) which they tell themselves they are not. Or hunters, which they are not. Or, often in the case of feminists and metrosexualized males, traditional American males, which they are not. Gun owners have become the "undesirables", the outcast class which is fashionable to deride, smear, and abuse with restrictive laws, for which all of society's ills can be blamed, and the public can say "Well, at least I'm better than them, keep those eewy sub-people away from us!"
    Last edited by BillMCyrus; 06-29-2010 at 11:29 AM.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    The list is in the dissenting opinion by Breyer

    Here it is
    Quote Originally Posted by Doug Huffman View Post
    http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/06/an...al/#more-22366


    From the decision, Breyer dissenting;

    Consider too that countless gun regulations of manyshapes and sizes are in place in every State and in manylocal communities. Does the right to possess weapons forself-defense extend outside the home? To the car? To work? What sort of guns are necessary for self-defense?Handguns? Rifles? Semiautomatic weapons? When is a gun semi-automatic? Where are different kinds of weapons likely needed? Does time-of-day matter? Does the presence of a child in the house matter? Does the pres-ence of a convicted felon in the house matter? Do police need special rules permitting pat downs designed to find guns? When do registration requirements become severe to the point that they amount to an unconstitutional ban?Who can possess guns and of what kind? Aliens? Prior drug offenders? Prior alcohol abusers? How would the right interact with a state or local government’s ability to take special measures during, say, national security emergencies? As the questions suggest, state and local gun regulation can become highly complex, and these “are only a few uncertainties that quickly come to mind.”
    Last edited by Doug Huffman; 06-29-2010 at 12:30 PM.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Portsmouth, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    463
    When will the people wake up and realize that "reasonable restrictions" are no different than the literacy tests and poll taxes used to keep blacks away from the polls prior to the 1965 voting act???

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    57
    Oh Puleeze! These people don't want to restrict gun ownership based on race, income or any other limited segments of society. They want to restrict access to EVERYONE.

    Reall is as simple as that.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Grennsboro NC
    Posts
    5,358
    Doug, I know about Breyer's little "list", but I've already addressed that in another thread...

    Almost EVERY single example that Breyer enumerates as "speculative" have SCOTUS or high Federal Court rulings that are PUBLISHED CASE LAW, and are in line with and supportive of Heller and McDonald.

    It is disturbing that Justice Breyer doesn't seem to be familiar with the case law of his Institution.

    Such voluntary ignorance bodes ill for future cases along these lines. But I think we know that Breyer, Sotomayor, Ginsberg, and Stevens (or whoever replaces him) did not base their vote on any logical, rational, or academic interpretation of Case Law, Legal Precedent, or History. Theirs was a purely ideological vote, and is verging on a violation of their Oaths to uphold the constitution.

    Honestly, I think that if they vote in a manner counter to Heller and McDonald on future 2A-related cases, they should be disbarred, charged with Treason for violating their oaths and undermining the Constitution, and charged with conspiracy to commit Federal Civil Rights violations...

  7. #7
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Grennsboro NC
    Posts
    5,358
    Quote Originally Posted by NCBobD View Post
    Oh Puleeze! These people don't want to restrict gun ownership based on race, income or any other limited segments of society. They want to restrict access to EVERYONE.

    Reall is as simple as that.

    Not really. They want to restrict firearms ownership for people who are not part of their self-appointed "ruling elite". They don't want to get rid of guns. They just don't want them in the hands of anyone who is not "blessed" by their little clan of elitist fascists and their officially sanctioned "regulators"...

  8. #8
    Regular Member Phoenix David's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Glendale, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    629
    I think that "reasonable restrictions" will vary from place to place. Such as Arizona, the reasonable restriction is that you are a citizen of the US and not a prohibited possessor.

    My Two cents is that that a state cannot have an outright ban on gun ownership but it have what the state deems "reasonable restrictions" through it's state legislative process.

    You need to get your state legislators to listen to you, Do you think Arizona got rid of it's permit system overnight ? no we had to fight for it, we had to get the bills passed and get the state legislators to understand that this is what the people want. Start voting them out if they won't listen to you start suing them.

    Or pull out the big gun and tell them to GFTS and move to a free state. That's why I am here.

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    1,128
    If "they" are the Bradys, then "they" answered this question in their brief to the Supreme Court in McDonald:

    "Reasonable restrictions" means any restriction whatsoever that is short of an outright ban on all firearms ownership, or not "intended" to bring about such a ban.

    That is what "they" mean by "intermediate scrutiny."

    This is one reason why the next 2A fight at the Supreme Court is the most important.

  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,666

    "Reasonable Restrictions"

    do not exist in the text of Amendment II

    "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,
    the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."


    No where does the word exist. Perhaps Justice Breyer is confused with Amendment IV, where the word "unreasonable" does exist.

    At every turn, in every case brought before the court for the next two decades a reminder of this simple and salient point needs to be made to the justice on the court.
    Live Free or Die!

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Las Vegas, NV
    Posts
    1,140
    Eh? It also says we can't infringe on free speech etc, but there are restriction on the use "ie, the fire in theater."

    Obviously this will be a debate. What is a reasonable restriction? Does that mean a background check, types of arms (anyone wants peopel getting nukes?) or what? The debate will rage on, most likely what will happen is that any american can get a gun eventually, who isn't a felon. What type of gun will be debated for the next 20 years.




    Quote Originally Posted by gogodawgs View Post
    do not exist in the text of Amendment II

    "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,
    the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."


    No where does the word exist. Perhaps Justice Breyer is confused with Amendment IV, where the word "unreasonable" does exist.

    At every turn, in every case brought before the court for the next two decades a reminder of this simple and salient point needs to be made to the justice on the court.

  12. #12
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,666

    No...

    Quote Originally Posted by Pace View Post
    Eh? It also says we can't infringe on free speech etc, but there are restriction on the use "ie, the fire in theater."

    Obviously this will be a debate. What is a reasonable restriction? Does that mean a background check, types of arms (anyone wants peopel getting nukes?) or what? The debate will rage on, most likely what will happen is that any american can get a gun eventually, who isn't a felon. What type of gun will be debated for the next 20 years.
    No the first amendment says "Congress shall make no law..." it says nothing about states, cities, etc....

    The fourth amendment talks about "unreasonable search and seizure..." Whereas the court is left to determine what is unreasonable...

    (by the way you can yell "fire in a theater"! You cannot falsely yell fire in a crowded theater. Which was superceded by the standard of you cannot 'incite imminent lawless action.') see Schenek v . United States, 1919 (clear and present danger) and (replaced by) Brandenburg v. Ohio 1969 (imminent lawless action)
    Live Free or Die!

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by Pace View Post
    Eh? It also says we can't infringe on free speech etc, but there are restriction on the use "ie, the fire in theater."

    Obviously this will be a debate. What is a reasonable restriction? Does that mean a background check, types of arms (anyone wants peopel getting nukes?) or what? The debate will rage on, most likely what will happen is that any american can get a gun eventually, who isn't a felon. What type of gun will be debated for the next 20 years.
    Excellent point. I think that reasonable restrictions will not disallow law-abiding citizens from owning and carrying personal weapons up to and including semi-automatic handguns and long guns, as well as shotguns, nor will it make such overly difficult. I hope it does not allow registration of individual firearms.

  14. #14
    Regular Member Jack House's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    I80, USA
    Posts
    2,661
    Quote Originally Posted by gogodawgs View Post
    (by the way you can yell "fire in a theater"! You cannot falsely yell fire in a crowded theater. Which was superceded by the standard of you cannot 'incite imminent lawless action.') see Schenek v . United States, 1919 (clear and present danger) and (replaced by) Brandenburg v. Ohio 1969 (imminent lawless action)
    Exactly, it's not that you can't yell fire in a crowded theater, it's that you are liable for the end results when you do.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Portsmouth, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    463
    Quote Originally Posted by NCBobD View Post
    Oh Puleeze! These people don't want to restrict gun ownership based on race, income or any other limited segments of society. They want to restrict access to EVERYONE.

    Reall is as simple as that.
    I never said they wanted to restrict gun ownership based on race, etc...what I said was they are using the SAME tacticts used to keep blacks away from the polls, by placing hoops to jump through and obstacles in the way to gun ownership and creating unreasonable taxes (registration fees, safety course fees, etc...) ...hoping that John Q. Public just gets frustrated and gives up. Any impediment placed in the path to gun ownership, for no other reason than to simply make it more difficult to buy a gun, is contrary to the spirit of the law and therefore an UNREASONABLE restriction.

  16. #16
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961

    Definition of Reasonable Restrictions

    Reasonable restrictions are those infringements upon your god given rights that you are not willing to defend against with powder and musket.

    If you do not stand against the infringement then it is reasonable.

    (You don't think the courts are really going to listen to SCOTUS do you?)

  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    If you and we do not stand against the infringement then it is reasonable!

    Quote Originally Posted by Thundar View Post
    Reasonable restrictions are those infringements upon your god given rights that you are not willing to defend against with powder and musket.

    If you do not stand against the infringement then it is reasonable.
    Well said!!

  18. #18
    Regular Member Archangel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    OTP, Georgia, USA
    Posts
    231
    From the decision, Breyer dissenting;

    Consider too that countless gun regulations of manyshapes and sizes are in place in every State and in manylocal communities. Does the right to possess weapons forself-defense extend outside the home? To the car? To work? What sort of guns are necessary for self-defense?Handguns? Rifles? Semiautomatic weapons? When is a gun semi-automatic? Where are different kinds of weapons likely needed? Does time-of-day matter? Does the presence of a child in the house matter? Does the pres-ence of a convicted felon in the house matter? Do police need special rules permitting pat downs designed to find guns? When do registration requirements become severe to the point that they amount to an unconstitutional ban?Who can possess guns and of what kind? Aliens? Prior drug offenders? Prior alcohol abusers? How would the right interact with a state or local government’s ability to take special measures during, say, national security emergencies? As the questions suggest, state and local gun regulation can become highly complex, and these “are only a few uncertainties that quickly come to mind.”
    I don't know about you... But I do NOT want any ALIENS to possess weapons...






    Yes of course I knew what he meant. But thats still funny right there...

  19. #19
    Regular Member dfox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Garden City/Barryton, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    100

    What

    Quote Originally Posted by Pace View Post
    Eh? It also says we can't infringe on free speech etc, but there are restriction on the use "ie, the fire in theater."

    Obviously this will be a debate. What is a reasonable restriction? Does that mean a background check, types of arms (anyone wants peopel getting nukes?) or what? The debate will rage on, most likely what will happen is that any american can get a gun eventually, who isn't a felon. What type of gun will be debated for the next 20 years.
    You can yell "FIRE" in a theater if there is a fire!
    Dave
    http://www.survivalfox.com/
    "Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom". - John F. Kennedy, former U.S. President

  20. #20
    Regular Member Bikenut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,756
    Quote Originally Posted by dfox View Post
    You can yell "FIRE" in a theater if there is a fire!
    You can (you have the "right" to) yell "FIRE" in a theater even if there isn't any fire. There is no restriction on what you can yell... anywhere at any time.... but there can be consequences (penalties) to yelling or saying something somewhere that causes harm to someone else.

    Consider this:

    If a person yells "FIRE" in a theater where there is no fire and the crime of causing many folks to be trampled and hurt during the stampede out is committed.... is one of the consequences, besides fines and imprisonment, requiring them to never speak or write or communicate in any way... thereby losing their right to free speech?

    So... then why is the right to "keep and bear" lost when a crime is committed with a gun?
    Last edited by Bikenut; 06-30-2010 at 04:21 PM.
    Gun control isn't about the gun at all.... for those who want gun control it is all about their own fragile egos, their own lack of self esteem, their own inner fears, and most importantly... their own desire to dominate others. And an openly carried gun is a slap in the face to all of those things.

  21. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
    You can (you have the "right" to) yell "FIRE" in a theater even if there isn't any fire. There is no restriction on what you can yell... anywhere at any time.... but there can be consequences (penalties) to yelling or saying something somewhere that causes harm to someone else...
    By that logic, you have a right to commit armed robbery. It's just that there are consequences.

    A right is something you may do that has been specifically designated as having no consequence under the law. If the government can use the force of law to punish you for an action, you do not have a right to do it--by definition.

    You have the right to carry a gun (at least if you're not in Chicago), but not to commit armed robbery. You have the right to speak freely, but not to create a physical hazard for others.

  22. #22
    Regular Member Bikenut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,756
    Quote Originally Posted by dfox View Post
    You can yell "FIRE" in a theater if there is a fire!
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    By that logic, you have a right to commit armed robbery. It's just that there are consequences.

    A right is something you may do that has been specifically designated as having no consequence under the law. If the government can use the force of law to punish you for an action, you do not have a right to do it--by definition.

    You have the right to carry a gun (at least if you're not in Chicago), but not to commit armed robbery. You have the right to speak freely, but not to create a physical hazard for others.
    Not quite.... a "right" is something you have that cannot be denied, removed, or regulated. But you cannot use a "right" as a defense for harming, or causing harm, to others.

    Back to yelling "FIRE"... you have the right to free speech so you can, and have the right to, yell anything you want... but you cannot go to court and use your right to free speech as a defense to exonerate you from paying the consequences/penalties that resulted from doing it. The crime wasn't exercising free speech by yelling "FIRE" the crime was causing harm with the aid of a spoken word.

    Just as you have the "right" to "keep and bear" but you cannot use that "right" as a defense to exonerate you from the crime of committing armed robbery. The crime wasn't the right of "keep"ing or "bear"ing "arms".... the crime was the robbery with the aid of an "arm".

    The "right" remains but the "right" does not grant immunity from crimes committed while exercising that "right".

    Please let us not confuse exercising a "right" with committing a "crime". They are separate and totally different things.
    Gun control isn't about the gun at all.... for those who want gun control it is all about their own fragile egos, their own lack of self esteem, their own inner fears, and most importantly... their own desire to dominate others. And an openly carried gun is a slap in the face to all of those things.

  23. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
    Not quite.... a "right" is something you have that cannot be denied, removed, or regulated. But you cannot use a "right" as a defense for harming, or causing harm, to others.

    Back to yelling "FIRE"... you have the right to free speech so you can, and have the right to, yell anything you want... but you cannot go to court and use your right to free speech as a defense to exonerate you from paying the consequences/penalties that resulted from doing it. The crime wasn't exercising free speech by yelling "FIRE" the crime was causing harm with the aid of a spoken word.

    Just as you have the "right" to "keep and bear" but you cannot use that "right" as a defense to exonerate you from the crime of committing armed robbery. The crime wasn't the right of "keep"ing or "bear"ing "arms".... the crime was the robbery with the aid of an "arm".

    The "right" remains but the "right" does not grant immunity from crimes committed while exercising that "right".

    Please let us not confuse exercising a "right" with committing a "crime". They are separate and totally different things.
    I am making no such confusion. I'd say that you are.

    It is the act of yelling "Fire" in the crowded theater when there is no fire that is the crime, and that is the act that you say is a right. I contend that it is not. In that case, one is seemingly exercising a right, for which there may not be legal consequences, but is actually, because of the details of the act and the attendant context, a crime. Similarly someone carrying a gun is a right. However, in the context of demanding that someone give you their money, the act is now armed robbery. Even more simply, possessing a gun is a right, however if you possess it in such a way as it is pointed at somebody (not in self-defense) you are committing (in many States) assault with a deadly weapon. All you were doing was holding it. The context turned the action from a right to a crime.

    So, I'll say again: You have a right to yell "Fire." However, in the context of a crowded theater that is not on fire, that right becomes a crime. It's a crime to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater, not a right, however one convolutes the logic.

  24. #24
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreamer View Post
    SNIP It is disturbing that Justice Breyer doesn't seem to be familiar with the case law of his Institution.
    No surprise there. The insane rarely know the policies of their institution. Get one more activist liberal on the court and the inmates will be running the asylum.

  25. #25
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
    ...(discussion with Eye)...
    I think what y'all are debating is something called prior restraint.

    If so, then the apples-to-apples comparison between guns and yelling fire would be more something along the lines of:

    The 1A equivalent of gun bans would be to cut out the tongues of theater-goers so they would be incapable of yelling fire.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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