A bartender that tries to take someone's keys is commiting assault and theft. He might get sued for not cutting the drunk off; refusing to serve someone is not a crime, but taking car keys away without permission is.
Lewiston, ME
- Thread starter gprellwitz
- Start date
- Status
A bartender that tries to take someone's keys is commiting assault and theft. He might get sued for not cutting the drunk off; refusing to serve someone is not a crime, but taking car keys away without permission is.
The 2A is just as much a part of the Consititution as all the other rights. Would you require psych evals as a prerequsite to freedom of religion? Got to head off Jim Jones style nutcases before they pass out the KoolAid, right? How about freedom of speech? Or freedom of the press?
By virtue of the USC, the gov't has no more authority to control the ownership of guns than they do to control the ownership of books, but they've been overstepping for a century or so.
Besides, psych evals are somewhat subjective and examiners will often have different opinions. What are the objective criteria for such an evaluation? Who establishes those criteria? And how do you prevent an administration from using these evals as a way to stomp all over the fundamental right?
Sorry - total non-starter.
Overserving, not for not stealing his car keys.
Let's try this first and see how many problems it fixes. Could be we won't need anything else.
RyanShort1
Final Approach
It's somewhat amusing that at the end of the day, there will be a "by what standard" applied - it's not a matter of whether, but which.
wanttaja
En-Route
Freedom of religion, freedom of the speech, and freedom of the press regularly have restrictions placed on them, based on Congress' and the American people's perception on what is needed.
Freedom of religion? If you're a Muslim, you can't have four wives in the US. The Mormons had to ban polygamy for Utah to gain entrance as a state. 2.4% of people in the US practice a religion where life begins at birth, not conception.
Freedom of speech? Don't incite folks to perform illegal acts, even if you don't do them yourself. Incitement isn't covered under the First Amendment. Don't encourage someone to commit suicide, either.
Freedom of the press? Regularly restricted...if your press is printing child porn, the government will shut you down. Don't publish leaflets encouraging people to dodge the draft, either (Espionage act of 1917).
Now, many of these things are definitely *good*. But, again, the public ultimately has to accept the necessity of these limits.
So the precedent is certainly there to limit second amendment rights.
Ron Wanttaja
RyanShort1
Final Approach
Which might be mitigated somewhat... by the "shall not be infringed" - which is a wee bit stronger than the other amendments. Also, precedent does not mean that those judges who came to certain conclusions later on, were actually in step with the actual Bill of Rights. Plenty of landmark cases have been overturned.
Yes, we can define some things you can’t do with a gun, like murder or shooting out your neighbor’s porch light. But you cannot remove ownership rights anymore than you can gag someone because he might commit slander. “Keep and bear” limits what restrictions can be placed, and psych evaluations are no more acceptable for the 2nd amendment than for the 1st.
wilkersk
Pattern Altitude
This reminds me of a "continuing education" reading for healthcare providers that popped up some time ago. In particular, the appendix on "understanding gun culture". https://www.netce.com/coursecontent.php?courseid=2343#chap.11
You cannot argue with someone who knows they're right. This goes back to my post about it being pointless. There's no compromise, and the laws we have do little to prevent the kind of "mass-shootings" that get all the press, let alone all of the suicides and drive by shootings that don't even move the meter on the national news scale.
Until we RE-reform mental health-care in this country and re-think our thinking on "scary black guns", gun education, and the whole "it-takes-a-village" idea, the nuts and the ninnys will each continue to drive the conversation into two extreme polar opposite sides of a shouting match. And the rest of us in the middle can only plug our ears and wait...
AKiss20
Line Up and Wait
”A well regulated….”
Unless you believe that private individuals should have the right to own arms such as artillery, tanks, and nuclear/hydrogen bombs, you already believe there are some ownership rights of arms that can be removed, and then the discussion is purely on where you draw the line of what can and cannot be owned. If you believe that private individuals should be allowed to own those arms, that’s logically consistent, if absolutely insane IMO.
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2008
- Messages
- 23,962
- Display Name
Display name:
Bob Noel
small correction: The USSC court rulings have affirmed the limitations wrt the govt authority.
and btw - my position is that all of my rights are constrained by your rights, and vice versa.
My right to life is not so absolute that I can force you to give me a kidney.
- Status