• 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.

What do they REALLY mean by "Reasonable Restrictions"?

Dreamer

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2009
Messages
5,360
Location
Grennsboro NC
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...
 

BillMCyrus

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2008
Messages
118
Location
Lancaster County, PA
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:

Doug Huffman

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
9,180
Location
Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin,
The list is in the dissenting opinion by Breyer

Here it is
http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/06/analysis-gun-rights-go-national/#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:

fully_armed_biker

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
463
Location
Portsmouth, Virginia, USA
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???
 

NCBobD

Regular Member
Joined
May 12, 2010
Messages
57
Location
, ,
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.
 

Dreamer

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2009
Messages
5,360
Location
Grennsboro NC
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...
 

Dreamer

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2009
Messages
5,360
Location
Grennsboro NC
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"...
 

Phoenix David

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2009
Messages
605
Location
Glendale, Arizona, USA
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.
 

The Donkey

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2006
Messages
1,114
Location
Northern Virginia
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.
 

gogodawgs

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Messages
5,669
Location
Federal Way, Washington, USA
"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.
 

Pace

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2009
Messages
1,140
Location
Las Vegas, NV
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.




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.
 

gogodawgs

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Messages
5,669
Location
Federal Way, Washington, USA
No...

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)
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
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.
 

Jack House

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
2,611
Location
I80, USA
(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.
 

fully_armed_biker

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
463
Location
Portsmouth, Virginia, USA
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.
 

Thundar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
4,946
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
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?)
 

Archangel

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2008
Messages
232
Location
OTP, Georgia, USA
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...

marsat.jpg



:lol:

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

dfox

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2009
Messages
98
Location
Garden City/Barryton, Michigan, USA
What

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!
 
B

Bikenut

Guest
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 a moderator:
Top