Comments on: Activist Justices vs. Strict Constructionist Justices

By: T. A. Gray

T. A. Gray — Sun, 23 Mar 2008 07:08:06 +0000

I agree. Traditionally the court may say, there may be circumstances where reasonable restrictions are necessary, but the question before the court is; is the DC ban reasonable? We think that it is or is not. That sets a parimeter which lower courts are then free to test, and allows the Court to further refine over the course of time.

By: Adam

Adam — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 01:51:01 +0000

I tend to generally agree with your point of view. However, even rights like Free Speech have been regulated since 1600’s English common law. For example, libel and obscenity are not protected forms of speech per English common law and the U.S. Supreme Court. See FCC v. Pacifica for example of gov. regulation of what is said on public airwaves.

My other point is this: If the court says that it in in the interest of public safety for “reasonable” restrictions, then they should say only that point. If they describe what specific restrictions are “reasonable,” they will have become an activist court. It is up to legislatures and the people to decide what specific restrictions are “reasonable,” not the court.

By: T. A. Gray

T. A. Gray — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 21:07:48 +0000

Well, I was always taught that rights came with responsibilities. God knows with the kind of “free to be you and me” crap taught nowadays, that may be a novel concept, but I doubt if it was on the framers.

Nonetheless, Im sure they realized that there would always be a few loose nuts around that should’t be trusted wih guns, but that was not their concern as much as protecting the right of sane individuals to “keep and bear”.

By: Michael Ejercito

Michael Ejercito — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 18:14:35 +0000

Solicitor General Paul D. Clement told the justices that too strict a standard would imperil the federal government’s efforts to restrict machine guns or “plastic” guns meant to avoid metal detector screening. The right to bear arms, Clement argued, “always coexisted with reasonable regulations of firearms.”

A ban on plastic guns is like a ban on lightsabers.

I wouldn’t be surprised if my Second Amendment friends took exception to my comments. That said, we regulate things because they conflict with public safety. The lone exception should be the First Amendment.

Actually, there are restrictions on speech when they threaten public safety.

One can not use freedom of speech as a defense against charges of conspiracy to commit murder. (Almost every case of conspiracy to commit murder involved talking about the planned act.)