The Star Telegram on OCTC - nothing new, really

[jmra]

Can you yell fire in a crowded theatre? No right is absolute.

Schumer’s False Fire

This fire-in-a-theater jazz is a favorite of the less historically literate among America’s false-compromisers, most of whom know neither that the phrase was a (defective) analogy and not a legal doctrine, nor that the case from which it comes was subsequently overturned with some prejudice.

And this is supposed to prove what exactly?

[treadlightly]

This fire-in-a-theater jazz is a favorite of the less historically literate among America’s false-compromisers, most of whom know neither that the phrase was a (defective) analogy and not a legal doctrine,

Wasn't if from the use of nitrocellulose in movie film?

[chuck j]

I understand the meaning of yelling 'FIRE' in a movie theater and understand it' is forbidden by common sense in our first amendment rights but was curious in what way baldeagle related it in this situation .

[AJSully421]

Open carry activists not so open about criminal past - http://www.star-telegram.com/opinion/op ... 43031.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.

I don't know Bud Kennedy's politics. Kory Watkins has a little more acne on his permanent record than I thought.

Bud writes for the Startle Gram... that is all that you need to know.

I wouldn't wipe my rear with that paper.

[baldeagle]

I understand the meaning of yelling 'FIRE' in a movie theater and understand it' is forbidden by common sense in our first amendment rights but was curious in what way baldeagle related it in this situation .

Since you asked, I'll articulate. I'm sure some in the church of unfettered rights will consider what I write to be sacrilege.

In any society, rights have to be balanced against the good of society. For example, you might have the right to store 1000 pound of gunpowder unsafely on your property if your nearest neighbor is 3 miles from you, but if you live in a city you would be endangering your neighbors. You shouldn't be surprised if those neighbors think it's not a good idea and demand that the city place certain restrictions on your storing of gunpowder. Since we are a constitutional republic, your opinion of what your rights are might well be in the minority in that instance.

The First Amendment gives you the right to free speech, but that doesn't mean you can preach your gospel on my private property. And in a responsible society it means you can't even do it in public if you're infringing on other people's rights. The same logic applies to all the other amendments, including the Second.

Since the inception of our country placing restrictions on gun rights has been the normal state of affairs in populated areas. Since this was done and accepted by the very people who formed our country, it's difficult for me to accept the premise that any restriction on gun rights is unconstitutional. The right to bear arms shall not be infringed means just that. But it means that to law abiding citizens, not to those who ignore the law. Our own Constitution states that your rights cannot be taken away without due process of law, not that they cannot be taken away period.

Some restrictions on carrying weapons are perfectly reasonable. For example, expecting that you're not a lawbreaker is not unreasonable. Expecting that you can at least hit in the vicinity of what you are shooting at is not unreasonable. Expecting that you have some minimal training in the safe handling of firearms isn't unreasonable. Licensing is a way to ensure that reasonableness is evaluated and some sort of standard is maintained.

Your rights do come from God and they are inviolate but you live in society. If you exercise those rights in an unreasonable way, you shouldn't be surprised if others object. If enough object, their objections get codified as law. In the final analysis, your rights can completely disappear if enough people in society decide they should. At that point, you have to decide which is more important; your life or your rights. That's the very decision our forefathers were faced with.

For the past twenty years licensed carriers have amassed a record of respect for the law that is unparalleled in our society. That record acts as a bulwark against the gun control crowd that trivializes their arguments and makes them less influential to the public. Once all restrictions on the right to carry are removed, it's logical to expect that some less law abiding people will take advantage of the situation and "stain" the good record that gun carriers have built up. It's not at all hard to see the argument, "If anybody can carry a gun, then people who shouldn't will be carrying. Therefore, we will all be less safe." Right now that argument is laughable. With so-called "constitutional carry", that argument will carry more force.

I've lived long enough to know that politics in this country is like a pendulum. When it swings against you, it can swing quite badly. Right now conservatism is on the rise. Twenty years from now who knows? That is the time when your arguments had better be well supported by facts, or you will lose more than you thought you had gained. If anybody can carry a gun, then Kory Watkins can carry a gun. Do you want Kory carrying a gun? If not, then what's your mechanism for preventing him? If you think gun rights should have no restrictions at all, you are clearly in a minority. If Kory behaves badly, it reflects badly on you. You shouldn't be surprised then if your rights suddenly get restricted by public demand.

So think carefully about what you want.

[chuck j]

Thank you for your thoughts .