Bipartisan Senate group proposes ‘no fly, no buy’ gun measure

[David Horn]

(02-20-2018, 01:18 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(02-19-2018, 02:55 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(02-18-2018, 11:00 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(02-18-2018, 07:56 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Rights do not prevent the state from regulation of those rights.

That depends very much on the regulation.  Certainly, the Bill of Rights applies to the states.  Certainly, the principle should stand that exercising a right does not provide a justification for taking away the rights of others, or of doing another harm. Other limitations without those excuses are generally rejected, often by the US Supreme Court.

No rights are absolute.  There have been cases where this has been argued and even affirmed, but the concept is highly questionable.  Robert Jackson, the last Justice of the Supreme Court to achieve that position without attending law school, wrote a long dissent to a 1949 free-speech case where he stated that the Bill of Rights is not a suicide pact.  His dissent has been cited successfully since then.  After all, no one has the right to slander someone or shout FIRE in a crowded theater.  If that applies to the First Amendment, it surely should to those that follow it.

Again, a right can be regulated if a perpetrator is harming others or removing another's rights.  The Second grants a right to have and carry a firearm.  It does not protect citizens who murder. 

Some blues seem to think a right means nothing if it gets in the way of their personal opinion.  This is simply not the case.  

Yet.

The point of Jackson's argument is societal not individual.  Banning or regulating rights-based practices that degrade the society can be justified if the damage is severe enough to threaten society in general.  That's obviously a subjective call, but we should be able to know it when we see it.  Shouting FIRE is not an individual threat.  It threatens the public ... at least that portion of the public in attendance.  If the guy who sent the nuclear attack message in Hawaii had done so on purpose, that may be another example.

I believe Heller was wrongly decided.  Another court may decide that as well.  Short of that, however, we may find some limitations using Jackson's measuring stick.