• 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.

Gun Restrictions as Analogy for Justifying Speech Restrictions. E. Volokh

Doug_Nightmare

Active member
Joined
Nov 21, 2018
Messages
557
https://reason.com/volokh/2020/11/11/gun-restrictions-as-analogy-for-justifying-speech-restrictions
E. Volokh said:
EUGENE VOLOKH | 11.11.2020 1:59 PM
I've often heard gun rights supporters object to restrictions on gun ownership by various people (including felons, people subject to domestic restraining orders, and the like) by analogy to speech restrictions: We wouldn't ban a person from public speaking just because he had once been convicted of a crime (assume he's out of prison now, and no longer on probation); why should we do the same as to guns? Conversely, the argument goes, if courts accept the gun restrictions, those restrictions would end up being used as analogy to restrict other rights, too.
I don't think this is an open-and-shut argument; different constitutional rights involve different kinds of risks, and are therefore often treated differently. It may well be that the dangers posed by gun ownership by people with a criminal record (especially a record of violent crime) may justify a ban, but the different dangers posed by speech wouldn't; and there is indeed more of a tradition—though only dating back about a century or less—of restrictions on gun ownership by felons.
[ ... More]
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,415
Location
White Oak Plantation
Starts out with gun ownership...then uses gun restrictions...then back to gun ownership...words mean things and the terms we use are critical for effective communication... is there a higher court ruling pertaining to we exercising our 2A is not protected by our 1A?
 

CJ4wd

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2017
Messages
278
Location
Planet Earth
Starts out with gun ownership...then uses gun restrictions...then back to gun ownership...words mean things and the terms we use are critical for effective communication... is there a higher court ruling pertaining to we exercising our 2A is not protected by our 1A?
Would it not be more correct to say that our 2A rights protects our 1A rights? Or, perhaps they are so intertwined that they protect each other?
 
Top