Two Interesting Cases From the 9th Circuit

[BlaineG]

imported post

thewise1 wrote:

BlaineG wrote:

I have no respect for the 9th Circus Court....they are the most overturned court in America:banghead:

They are the rule of law nonetheless.

Not the absolute.........They do get overturned with great regularity. They are NOT supporters of the 2A.

 

[deanf]

imported post

And they may be the ones who incorporate the 2nd under Heller.

 

[BlaineG]

imported post

9thare not going to need the 2A; The Heller allows reasonable restrictions. At the same time, the Antis are going after guns thru the back door. Court supported: Micro-stamping, lead bans, semi-auto bans, ammo tax. Anyway, back to the thread: Thespirit of the Bill of Rights is telling the Government what they may not regulate or be involved in. Back in the day when a fistfight was not a felony assault, limits on the 1st were fairly common. Look where we got with PC: Porn is now free speech, pics of Jesus with shit smeared on it is 1A protected art....We are not moving in the right direction with this. It is NOT a bad thing to have socital standards that are adheared to.

 

[thewise1]

imported post

BlaineG wrote:

9thare not going to need the 2A; The Heller allows reasonable restrictions. At the same time, the Antis are going after guns thru the back door. Court supported: Micro-stamping, lead bans, semi-auto bans, ammo tax. Anyway, back to the thread: Thespirit of the Bill of Rights is telling the Government what they may not regulate or be involved in. Back in the day when a fistfight was not a felony assault, limits on the 1st were fairly common. Look where we got with PC: Porn is now free speech, pics of Jesus with @#$% smeared on it is 1A protected art....We are not moving in the right direction with this. It is NOT a bad thing to have socital standards that are adheared to.

We've been over this before, and just like then, it is clear now that you want freedom of speech - as long as you approve of the message.

We vehemently disagree and rest assured that I will never ever stop working to ensure that freedom of speech applies to everyone's message - not just the ones you or I approve of.

I don't care about the 'spirit' of the law, the 'letter' of objective law is all that matters in reality.

 

[BlaineG]

imported post

thewise1 wrote:

BlaineG wrote:

9thare not going to need the 2A; The Heller allows reasonable restrictions. At the same time, the Antis are going after guns thru the back door. Court supported: Micro-stamping, lead bans, semi-auto bans, ammo tax. Anyway, back to the thread: Thespirit of the Bill of Rights is telling the Government what they may not regulate or be involved in. Back in the day when a fistfight was not a felony assault, limits on the 1st were fairly common. Look where we got with PC: Porn is now free speech, pics of Jesus with @#$% smeared on it is 1A protected art....We are not moving in the right direction with this. It is NOT a bad thing to have socital standards that are adheared to.

We've been over this before, and just like then, it is clear now that you want freedom of speech - as long as you approve of the message.

We vehemently disagree and rest assured that I will never ever stop working to ensure that freedom of speech applies to everyone's message - not just the ones you or I approve of.

I don't care about the 'spirit' of the law, the 'letter' of objective law is all that matters in reality.

I'm sorry.....I totally accept free speech, but I support obcenity and public disturbance types of control. Kind of like the old saw about you being able to swing your hand around until it gets too close to my face. Obama's team is really going after bloggers and others that have nothing good to say about the 'Crats. Yep, there's a fine example of Liberal freedom of speech, Bro:dude:

 

[Bear 45/70]

imported post

BlaineG wrote:

I can't believe anyone supports this wacko. There should be no place that you can get away with BS like that. (Flame Suit On):cuss:

This would be just too easy, so I will pass on it.

 

[heresolong]

imported post

thewise1 wrote:

We've been over this before, and just like then, it is clear now that you want freedom of speech - as long as you approve of the message.

Wrong. Let's look at original intent. The founders never intended for there to be absolute freedom of speech in all areas. The purpose of the First Amendment was specifically to protect "political" speech. Read what they wrote and they fully supported community norms when it came to things like obscenity. What they were concerned about was that the government not be able to suppress dissenting political opinions. They felt that a free exchange of ideas was crucial to the health of a democracy (or a democratic republic). I'm sure they would have been as disgusted and as opposed as most of us to child pornography, etc.

 

[thewise1]

imported post

heresolong wrote:

Wrong. Let's look at original intent. The founders never intended for there to be absolute freedom of speech in all areas. The purpose of the First Amendment was specifically to protect "political" speech. Read what they wrote and they fully supported community norms when it came to things like obscenity. What they were concerned about was that the government not be able to suppress dissenting political opinions. They felt that a free exchange of ideas was crucial to the health of a democracy (or a democratic republic). I'm sure they would have been as disgusted and as opposed as most of us to child pornography, etc.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Pardon me for disagreeing but I do not see anything in this objective law that supports your subjective opinion.

 

[tricityguy]

imported post

Pardon me for disagreeing but I do not see anything in this objective law that supports your subjective opinion.

+1

 

[PT111]

imported post

A citizen complained about the gun. Law enforcement officers from a Utah town investigated. They concluded on contacting him that Fogel was a mild-mannered anti-government enthusiast, who some others in the community called an “anti-government nut.” Fogel consented to a search of the gun, which the officers did, but in doing so they did not treat the gun as if it actually was illegal. The search yielding nothing. Nonetheless, solely because of theappearanceof the gun, the officers arrested him, took him to jail, and impounded his gun, and made him get a CCW before allowing him to retrieve thegun from impound. The prosecutor declined to file charges, and Fogel sued.

Howwould this sound?

 

[BlaineG]

imported post

thewise1 wrote:

heresolong wrote:

Wrong. Let's look at original intent. The founders never intended for there to be absolute freedom of speech in all areas. The purpose of the First Amendment was specifically to protect "political" speech. Read what they wrote and they fully supported community norms when it came to things like obscenity. What they were concerned about was that the government not be able to suppress dissenting political opinions. They felt that a free exchange of ideas was crucial to the health of a democracy (or a democratic republic). I'm sure they would have been as disgusted and as opposed as most of us to child pornography, etc.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Pardon me for disagreeing but I do not see anything in this objective law that supports your subjective opinion.

Congress shall.............What you're seeing is perfectly fine under state and local......

If you are for completely unrestricted language and actions in public, then we are a odds that will never be met......You are advocating anarchy, and I just don't think that will work in today's socity where the majority seem to be unschooled in social pleasantries.....

 

[thewise1]

imported post

BlaineG wrote:

Congress shall.............What you're seeing is perfectly fine under state and local......

If you are for completely unrestricted language and actions in public, then we are a odds that will never be met......You are advocating anarchy, and I just don't think that will work in today's socity where the majority seem to be unschooled in social pleasantries.....

The 1st amendment has been incorporated and applies to state/local law as well.

edit: and feel free to amend the Constitution if you disagree with it.

 

[heresolong]

imported post

thewise1 wrote:

Pardon me for disagreeing but I do not see anything in this objective law that supports your subjective opinion.

So the writings of the founding fathers who wrote the Constitution are now "my subjective opinion"? You have an interesting interpretation of subjective. As well as a confused view of Constitutional law. The SCOTUS constantly refers to founders intent. Otherwise there is absolutely no way that they could know how to apply a narrow set of Constitutional restrictions to the wide variety of cases that they are reviewing.

 

[thewise1]

imported post

heresolong wrote:

So the writings of the founding fathers who wrote the Constitution are now "my subjective opinion"? You have an interesting interpretation of subjective. As well as a confused view of Constitutional law. The SCOTUS constantly refers to founders intent. Otherwise there is absolutely no way that they could know how to apply a narrow set of Constitutional restrictions to the wide variety of cases that they are reviewing.

No, they are the founding fathers opinions.

The founding fathers were not a united front that agreed on everything. While some of them agreed with your point of view, that is not what was codified into law.

The law is and should be all that actually matters. Otherwise you end up with rulings that bring extra meaning into the 2nd amendment where there was no such meaning. The same applies to the 1st.

 

[heresolong]

imported post

thewise1 wrote:

No, they are the founding fathers opinions.

The founding fathers were not a united front that agreed on everything. While some of them agreed with your point of view, that is not what was codified into law.

The law is and should be all that actually matters. Otherwise you end up with rulings that bring extra meaning into the 2nd amendment where there was no such meaning. The same applies to the 1st.

But by your interpretation there can be no community standards. You have no right to prevent people from having sex on the street in front of the local school, you have no right to prevent people from posting pornographic images on their storefronts, you have no right to restrict minors from drinking, smoking, buying pornography, even if that is what the people want. Community standards have always been a part of the common law and were considered when codifying that law into the constitution.

 

[thewise1]

imported post

heresolong wrote:

But by your interpretation there can be no community standards. You have no right to prevent people from having sex on the street in front of the local school, you have no right to prevent people from posting pornographic images on their storefronts, you have no right to restrict minors from drinking, smoking, buying pornography, even if that is what the people want. Community standards have always been a part of the common law and were considered when codifying that law into the constitution.

You're right, that's my interpretation. Should a community standard apply to your right to keep and bear arms? Should you choose to answer that it should, perhaps I should point out that Seattle would very likely be strictly off limits for people like us.

Anyway, drinking, smoking, purchasing pornography... none of those are speech or press.

 

[thewise1]

imported post

Community standards are nothing more than a tool to restrict further than the law actually allows.

 

[heresolong]

imported post

thewise1 wrote:

heresolong wrote:

But by your interpretation there can be no community standards. You have no right to prevent people from having sex on the street in front of the local school, you have no right to prevent people from posting pornographic images on their storefronts, you have no right to restrict minors from drinking, smoking, buying pornography, even if that is what the people want. Community standards have always been a part of the common law and were considered when codifying that law into the constitution.

You're right, that's my interpretation. Should a community standard apply to your right to keep and bear arms? Should you choose to answer that it should, perhaps I should point out that Seattle would very likely be strictly off limits for people like us.

Anyway, drinking, smoking, purchasing pornography... none of those are speech or press.

I hate to say it but your interpretation of Constitutional freedoms would result in an anarchy. And the publication of pornography has been ruled speech. Under your rules, not the founding fathers.

 

[Bear 45/70]

imported post

heresolong wrote:

thewise1 wrote:

heresolong wrote:

But by your interpretation there can be no community standards. You have no right to prevent people from having sex on the street in front of the local school, you have no right to prevent people from posting pornographic images on their storefronts, you have no right to restrict minors from drinking, smoking, buying pornography, even if that is what the people want. Community standards have always been a part of the common law and were considered when codifying that law into the constitution.

You're right, that's my interpretation. Should a community standard apply to your right to keep and bear arms? Should you choose to answer that it should, perhaps I should point out that Seattle would very likely be strictly off limits for people like us.

Anyway, drinking, smoking, purchasing pornography... none of those are speech or press.

I hate to say it but your interpretation of Constitutional freedoms would result in an anarchy. And the publication of pornography has been ruled speech. Under your rules, not the founding fathers.

IMHO, Anarchy would be better than the police state they are in the process of creating while destroying the Constitution.

 

[thewise1]

imported post

heresolong wrote:

I hate to say it but your interpretation of Constitutional freedoms would result in an anarchy. And the publication of pornography has been ruled speech. Under your rules, not the founding fathers.

Publication of pornography is indeed speech. The purchase of it by a given age group has nothing to do with speech, however.

Also, your argument that my interpretation of the Constitution would result in anarchy is exactly the sort of argument I get from gun grabbers all the time. Can you not see the irony here? You're using a gun grabber's argument to justify limiting speech.

"It would be the wild west out there if we allowed people to own handguns and carry them openly!"
"It would be anarchy out there if we used your interpretation!"