• 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.

Midnight Musings

heliopolissolutions

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2009
Messages
542
Location
, ,
I've been out of the world for a while, been taking a break from California's RKBA battle.
Went to Istanbul, saw the Grand Prix. It was awesome.
I hope all you guys and gals are all well and healthy.

I was sitting in bed this evening and I started to have some thoughts, doubting thoughts which disturbed me and to me, bore some consideration.

In Schenk v US, Holmes indicated that to incite panic by yelling fire in a theater would in no way be protected by First Amendment rights. Thus limiting the 1st amendment. In...Brandenburg(?) V (?) (Sorry memory is fuzzy) another justice indicated that speech creating imminent lawlessness or producing lawlessness would likewise be unprotected. Thus limiting the first amendment.


In regards to 2nd Amendment rights, the right to keep and bear arms is protected (ideally).
But if those acts incite lawlessness or produce panic. ..is it still protected?
Perhaps we might think that it is a matter of reason that a panic should not result from the bearing of arms. But that is a highly qualitative assessment. One could also argue that people should not panic upon hearing "fire" and should be reasonable.

So now I am...in a quandry? Do we boil it down to intent, and discard such thoughts?
I'm always willing to question my beliefs, but in doing so I find myself a wee bit disturbed.

Can anyone offer thoughts on this?

Sent from my Droid
 

1245A Defender

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2009
Messages
4,365
Location
north mason county, Washington, USA
well,,,

i remember when the great white band was playing in a road house,
then the back drop of the stage caught on fire,
people started yelling FIRE!@!,,, but nobody panicked, or even seemed to care, at ALL!
finally people started to get burned by the fire,, that when they panicked!

people see guns in holsters, on hips, nobody seems to care,
when people start getting shot,, then they panic...
 

cato

Newbie
Joined
Oct 29, 2006
Messages
2,338
Location
California, USA
Dangerously discharging witout a self defense justification is akin to your fire analogy. Having the right to carry holstered pistols & slung or shouldered longarms is more akin to having the ability to speak. What you do with that ability determines the rest.

Libel, slander, and perjury are also not protected speech.
 

heliopolissolutions

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2009
Messages
542
Location
, ,
I considered the same thing, but I felt like it was a little to easy to rationalize from that perspective because those are my beliefs, and I'm biased in thinking that way.
 
Top