• 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"?

eye95

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

Bikenut

Guest
You can yell "FIRE" in a theater if there is a fire!

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.
 

eye95

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

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
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.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
...(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.
 

eye95

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

No, the discussion is reasonable restrictions, i.e. what contexts can be regulated. Yelling "Fire" is free speech. Doing so in a crowded theater that is not on fire can be a crime. Carrying a gun is a right. Covering it up so that no one knows you have it could be made illegal without a license. Being a convicted felon could make carrying illegal.

Reasonable restrictions would be a matter of determining these contexts. Of course, there should be very few of them and a compelling societal interest that makes the restriction reasonable.

Contrary to what some here insist, there are some contexts in which it is reasonable to restrict what in almost all other contexts would be a right.
 
B

Bikenut

Guest
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,<- Correct... the crime is yelling a word that causes the harm. It is not the "right" to free speech that allows you to yell anything you wish that caused the crime. You still have the "right" to yell any word you wish... including words that result in a crime. and that is the act that you say is a right. <- Incorrect... I stated that one has the right to exercise free speech .. I did not say they were exempt from any consequences resulting from the speech they choose to use nor did I say having a "right" allows one to commit a crime. 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.<- The crime is the result of the speech chosen to be used... not the "right" to free speech itself. 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. <- The crime is the robbery while using a gun to commit the robbery... not the "right" to bear arms itself. 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. <- Incorrect... the action of pointing a gun at someone has nothing to do with the "right" to bear arms. The crime is the action of pointing the gun... not having the right to bear arms.

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. <- Incorrect... the "right" isn't the crime... using a word that incites a riot is the crime... the choice of words in that context is the crime... It's a crime to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater, not a right, however one convolutes the logic.
Sorry.. there is no convolution of logic that separates a "right" from an action that is a crime. The "right" is not the issue... the action of the criminal who committed the crime is the issue.

You have the "right" to free speech... to say anything you want... you do not have the right to expect your right to free speech to allow you to use it to commit a crime.

In other words you have the "right" to yell anything you want, including the word "FIRE", in a theater but you will suffer the consequences if you choose a word that results in causing harm (committing a crime). But even choosing a word that is committing a crime has nothing to do with the "right" to free speech.

You have the "right" to keep and bear arms... but you will suffer the consequences if you choose to use those arms to cause harm (commit a crime). But even committing a crime does not have anything to do with the "right" to bear arms.

Again, please let us not confuse the "right" with the "crime".

The "right" to free speech is what it is... the laws decree what speech where and when is legal or criminal.

The "right" to keep and bear arms is what it is... the laws decree how arms are used that is either legal or criminal.

And you do have the "right" to get all annoyed with what I've said and tell me you are.......... moving on.
:)
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Sorry.. there is no convolution of logic that separates a "right" from an action that is a crime. The "right" is not the issue... the action of the criminal who committed the crime is the issue.

You have the "right" to free speech... to say anything you want... you do not have the right to expect your right to free speech to allow you to use it to commit a crime.

In other words you have the "right" to yell anything you want, including the word "FIRE", in a theater but you will suffer the consequences if you choose a word that results in causing harm (committing a crime). But even choosing a word that is committing a crime has nothing to do with the "right" to free speech.

You have the "right" to keep and bear arms... but you will suffer the consequences if you choose to use those arms to cause harm (commit a crime). But even committing a crime does not have anything to do with the "right" to bear arms.

Again, please let us not confuse the "right" with the "crime".

The "right" to free speech is what it is... the laws decree what speech where and when is legal or criminal.

The "right" to keep and bear arms is what it is... the laws decree how arms are used that is either legal or criminal.

And you do have the "right" to get all annoyed with what I've said and tell me you are.......... moving on.
:)

You may be using different words, but you are coming around to saying what I have been saying all along. The context takes an action that would normally be a right and turns into something illegal. My point is that, with a compelling interest to society, such contexts can be regulated.

If you wish to move on, do so. That will be your choice. Frankly, your last sentence makes it sound like you should before you get any ruder.
 
B

Bikenut

Guest
The problem with "reasonable restrictions" upon the keeping and bearing of arms is that those restrictions are placed upon the right to keep and bear in the hopes that no one will keep and bear... which is an infringement upon the right to keep and bear..........
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
The problem with "reasonable restrictions" upon the keeping and bearing of arms is that those restrictions are placed upon the right to keep and bear in the hopes that no one will keep and bear... which is an infringement upon the right to keep and bear..........

If restrictions generally keep people from keeping and bearing (such as in DC and in Daly's promised in Chicago), then they are, by definition, not reasonable.
 
B

Bikenut

Guest
You may be using different words, but you are coming around to saying what I have been saying all along. The context takes an action that would normally be a right and turns into something illegal. My point is that, with a compelling interest to society, such contexts can be regulated.

If you wish to move on, do so. That will be your choice. Frankly, your last sentence makes it sound like you should before you get any ruder.

Rude? Did you not see the smiley as an indication of pulling your leg a bit?:(

The point of contention we have been having is that you are saying it is OK to restrict the "right" itself when it is the action that needs to be restricted.

We are all familiar with the old saying that "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." and that is the truth. Well, gun rights don't commit crimes... criminals with guns commit crimes.

It isn't the right itself that is in question or needing to be restricted... it is the criminal and his criminal acts... which is where the law comes in.

Now the problem the progressives have given us is that they have been using the law to restrict the right... instead of the criminal and his criminal acts.

And that perspective of the progressives has given us the concept of "reasonable restrictions" upon rights.... instead of "reasonable restrictions" on those who commit crimes.

You have the right to keep and bear arms.... the law decrees what usages of arms are crimes... but the usage of arms has nothing to do with the right itself to keep and bear them.

A "right" is separate from what is a "crime".

If there is any true compelling interest of society it would be to restrict the actions of the criminal.... not the tool he uses by restricting the right to have or carry the tool.
 
B

Bikenut

Guest
If restrictions generally keep people from keeping and bearing (such as in DC and in Daly's promised in Chicago), then they are, by definition, not reasonable.
We agree.... but then you and I are not the one's in charge of determining the meaning of the word "reasonable".... which is what will be decided over the next 20 or 30 years in courts as each petty little tyrant tries to exert his power and control over some city, town, township, etc..
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Rude? Did you not see the smiley as an indication of pulling your leg a bit?:(

The point of contention we have been having is that you are saying it is OK to restrict the "right" itself when it is the action that needs to be restricted.

We are all familiar with the old saying that "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." and that is the truth. Well, gun rights don't commit crimes... criminals with guns commit crimes.

It isn't the right itself that is in question or needing to be restricted... it is the criminal and his criminal acts... which is where the law comes in.

Now the problem the progressives have given us is that they have been using the law to restrict the right... instead of the criminal and his criminal acts.

And that perspective of the progressives has given us the concept of "reasonable restrictions" upon rights.... instead of "reasonable restrictions" on those who commit crimes.

You have the right to keep and bear arms.... the law decrees what usages of arms are crimes... but the usage of arms has nothing to do with the right itself to keep and bear them.

A "right" is separate from what is a "crime".

If there is any true compelling interest of society it would be to restrict the actions of the criminal.... not the tool he uses by restricting the right to have or carry the tool.

You are arguing semantics. However, I suspect the Court would argue with your chosen semantics. They would call it the reasonable restriction of a right.

What you are saying is wonderful theory, but in the practical reality of the legal system they would use the words differently. I am going to continue to use the words "reasonable restriction of a right" because those are the word the courts will end up using.

But, we are talking about the same thing: Defining certain actions in certain contexts as illegal, even though the underlying act is a right. Such definitions must not generally make the underlying right more difficult to exercise nor give the government the ability to easily shut down the right.

On smileys: You behaved like a jerk. :)

Sorry, I still think my above sentence is rude.
 
B

Bikenut

Guest
You are arguing semantics. However, I suspect the Court would argue with your chosen semantics. They would call it the reasonable restriction of a right.

What you are saying is wonderful theory, but in the practical reality of the legal system they would use the words differently. I am going to continue to use the words "reasonable restriction of a right" because those are the word the courts will end up using.

But, we are talking about the same thing: Defining certain actions in certain contexts as illegal, even though the underlying act is a right. Such definitions must not generally make the underlying right more difficult to exercise nor give the government the ability to easily shut down the right.

On smileys: You behaved like a jerk. :)

Sorry, I still think my above sentence is rude.

Indeed... then I will simply disagree with your assertions about my using semantics to say the same thing you are saying when I most certainly am not...

And I also disagree about who is the jerk... no smileys needed.

Have a nice day.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Indeed... then I will simply disagree with your assertions about my using semantics to say the same thing you are saying when I most certainly am not...

And I also disagree about who is the jerk... no smileys needed.

Have a nice day.

Based on your reply, it is clear that you don't always see smileys the way you want others to see them. :)

I hope you have a wonderful evening too.
 

Dreamer

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2009
Messages
5,360
Location
Grennsboro NC
You are arguing semantics. However, I suspect the Court would argue with your chosen semantics. They would call it the reasonable restriction of a right.


Playing the "semantics" card when arguing on matters of the law is like accusing someone of being a racist when they say that the all the illegal aliens in the US are breaking the law...

Semantics is the ENTIRE point when discussing the finer points of the law. Semantics is defined as "the study of meaning, usually in language." Without understanding the meaning of the words in a given law, statute, or ruling, one cannot apply, interpret, or even reasonably discuss said issue.

Playing the "semantics" card also commits a number of logical and rhetorical fallacies, including deductive fallacy, the fallacy of proof of verbosity (using big words to try and confuse your opponent), fallacy of false cause, and the fallacy of irrelevant conclusion...

eye95, f you want to engage in legal or intellectual discourse, that's fine, I have no problem with that. But if you are going to enter the field of intellectual battle, please do us all the courtesy of arming yourself appropriately, because nobody finds honor against an unarmed opponent...
 
B

Bikenut

Guest
Please consider the words " reasonable restrictions upon a right"...

The words themselves convey the message that it is not only alright but is proper and wise to "restrict a right" in order to achieve what ever the desired result is.

But it is a lie. Because a "right" is a thing that by it's very nature cannot be restricted... because if a thing can be restricted it is not a "right" but is a "privilege". And a "privilege" is something those in authority can either give... or take away.

Not only is the idea/concept that there can be "restrictions upon a right", whether reasonable or not, dangerous because it makes a right into a privilege.... it is also an insidious progressivism Saul Alinsky psychological ploy to get people to think that a "right" can be restricted/regulated/legislated/and... controlled. And once people start thinking in that fashion.... "rights" disappear in a barrage of "restrictions" instituted by those in authority who wish only to exert authoritative control by handing out "privileges".

Whether anyone is willing to understand that there is a difference between a "right" and a "crime" and that restricting rights does not prevent crime... or that "restrictions" instantly make what ever is being restricted a "privilege" and not a "right" .... Words have meaning... and are often used to cleverly imbed an ideological agenda into society.

Having said all that.... I'm almost 62 years old... and it was in my early 50's that I finally understood what a "right" really was... and how a "right" can be turned into a "privilege" just by using the concept that crime can be controlled by controlling rights.

We are all familiar with the proven facts that when the citizens have guns crime rates go down but when the government turns the right to "keep and bear" into a "privilege" by mandating criteria for a person to meet to be eligible for the opportunity to "keep and bear".... or jumping through hoops in order to qualify for a license that is issued and controlled by those in authority to "keep" and/or "bear".. crime rates go up.

So how does "reasonable restriction on a right" help control crime? It doesn't... but it does help control "we the people". Remember these words????

Gun control (reasonable restrictions on a right?) isn't about guns... it is about control.

As far as "rights" go.... there are no "reasonable restrictions".. either it is a "right" that, by it's very nature, exists because nothing can restrict it... or it is a "privilege" that, by it's very nature, exists because of restrictions.

I apologize for the length of this post... it just sorta flowed out.
 
Top