NYC CCW case is at SCOTUS!

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • rbird7282

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Dec 6, 2012
    18,535
    Columbia
    All speech is allowed though. The only restrictions on speech are time, place & manner. I can say whatever I want to whomever I choose in any public public place. Including DC and Manhattan. I may not be allowed to use a bull horn. I may also be required to keep my clothes on. But I can say anything. And I can do so without a permit or a tax stamp.

    I’ve heard auctioneers that may have to register themselves as bump stocks.


    I would agree however there are penalties for mis-using speech. The 2nd amendment should be much the same way. You should be able to own and carry without restriction UNLESS you misuse the right (shoot someone without cause, etc.)


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     

    Occam

    Not Even ONE Indictment
    MDS Supporter
    Feb 24, 2018
    20,239
    Montgomery County
    Nope. You can’t defame someone. You also can’t issue threats of violence. A court would weigh in how imminent the threat of violence is or intention to intimidate.

    If the nature of the speech is communication of a criminal conspiracy that also isn’t legal.

    Speech is still regulated by the government and the constitution is clear some of that is fine. The rest SCOTUS has agree is not protected speech over the centuries. A lot of since
    The early days.

    Without splitting too many hairs, here, there's still a significant difference. You absolutely CAN defame, lie, incite, and conspire in your speech and communication. Right out loud! In public! The words will be able to come out of your mouth, the text can flow from your keyboard and make it around the world in a flash. There may be consequences - practical, social, and legal/liberty-related - but you will have spoken in those contexts. There's no prior restraint, no muzzle on your face or your keyboard. Just consequences.

    What the nanny statists want is to physically take away your guns in advance of your having used them in an inappropriate way. And while a few mal/under-informed lefties of otherwise kind of good will in their own fashion might argue that's a good thing, they've only recently turned to their new speech version of that: taking away your social media accounts, filtering your search results, blocking your videos, threatening your job or your family in advance of you saying WrongThink things. That's where we are, now. Prior restraint against the prospect of an act or word they don't like as the basis for creeping tyranny. Because anyone who would speak OR shoot in their own self defense is obviously a horrible person, likely a racist or worse.

    That's where the mindset we're up against is coming from. Engaging with contemporary statists by invoking any aspect of our founders' original thinking is - to the nanny staters - either funny, or further proof that those of us who do so are "stuck in the colonial, racist past" etc.
     

    lazarus

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 23, 2015
    13,678
    Without splitting too many hairs, here, there's still a significant difference. You absolutely CAN defame, lie, incite, and conspire in your speech and communication. Right out loud! In public! The words will be able to come out of your mouth, the text can flow from your keyboard and make it around the world in a flash. There may be consequences - practical, social, and legal/liberty-related - but you will have spoken in those contexts. There's no prior restraint, no muzzle on your face or your keyboard. Just consequences.

    What the nanny statists want is to physically take away your guns in advance of your having used them in an inappropriate way. And while a few mal/under-informed lefties of otherwise kind of good will in their own fashion might argue that's a good thing, they've only recently turned to their new speech version of that: taking away your social media accounts, filtering your search results, blocking your videos, threatening your job or your family in advance of you saying WrongThink things. That's where we are, now. Prior restraint against the prospect of an act or word they don't like as the basis for creeping tyranny. Because anyone who would speak OR shoot in their own self defense is obviously a horrible person, likely a racist or worse.

    That's where the mindset we're up against is coming from. Engaging with contemporary statists by invoking any aspect of our founders' original thinking is - to the nanny staters - either funny, or further proof that those of us who do so are "stuck in the colonial, racist past" etc.

    Except there certainly can be issues where an order for prior restraint can be issued. It’s rare, but happens.

    For instance, gag orders are regularly issued on legal cases. That is prior restraint.

    Now of course you can still violate that gag order and you’ll face the consequences. That’s not all that different than say, legally barring you from carrying a firearm outside the home.

    Speech and firearms aren’t exactly comparable though so you can’t necessarily make apples to apples comparisons.

    But prior restraint is not barred by the constitution. It is just uncommon for speech not related to legal cases and usually takes showing you’ve already violated the law with your speech and it can be shown you are likely to again.

    To quibble again, you are talking about on-governmental entities muzzling speech. That’s perfectly legal and fine. Nothing legally or constitutionally wrong with that. The government can’t.

    Well unless you are Trump. Then you can ban people from commenting on his official Twitter account used by him as president (not that it matters now that he isn’t president and also doesn’t have a Twitter account).

    But other than him, no government can’t do that to people. But public and private entire can just fine so long as they aren’t a government.
     

    TheOriginalMexicanBob

    Ultimate Member
    Jul 2, 2017
    32,178
    Sun City West, AZ
    While many say (including Biden a few evenings ago) say that no Constitutional Right is absolute...especially the 2nd Amendment...it brings up the opportunity to throw it back in their faces. When someone on the Left says something like that...we need to remind them that statement means it's OK to place "reasonable" restrictions on the right to an abortion...or the 13th Amendment and its ban on slavery is open to "reasonable" restrictions on that ban and some slavery is reasonable and acceptable.

    After all...it's their logic.
     
    I would agree however there are penalties for mis-using speech. The 2nd amendment should be much the same way. You should be able to own and carry without restriction UNLESS you misuse the right (shoot someone without cause, etc.)


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

    Anyone at any time should be able to own a firearm without exception...period...the penalties for using a gun in a crime should be so draconian that people will either think twice before doing so or the truly stupid bad apples will weed themselves out of society.

    Giving the government any excuse to prohibit people from owning a gun gives them a foot in the door to prohibit anyone they chose to from owning a gun as we have seen in numerous places...

    If your wife accuses you of domestic abuse you lose your rights...even if it's not true..
    Just take a look at redflag laws...

    Nope...the 2A says nothing about prohibition of any sort and that's how it needs to be interpreted.

    Start putting those who use guns in prison for a long long time...that's how you fix this mess...anything else gives the government an excuse to disarm people for any reason..

    The next thing they will do is start looking into your online activity and deem you a threat simply because you don't agree with certain issues....it's coming..
     

    Occam

    Not Even ONE Indictment
    MDS Supporter
    Feb 24, 2018
    20,239
    Montgomery County
    Now of course you can still violate that gag order and you’ll face the consequences. That’s not all that different than say, legally barring you from carrying a firearm outside the home.

    The difference, of course, is that they're coming right out and saying that they want to ban everyone's ability to possess a gun so that you can't use one to violate a law against murder even if you don't care about the consequences. And don't tell me that the airtight relationship between the party that now runs the government and the huge tech companies that facilitate virtually all of our communication are of no 1A importance. Where that's all headed is plain as day.

    Hell, Joe Biden just got done essentially saying that the structure of our republic and the democratic methods that we use to man the helm and choose our dog catchers is just getting too slow to keep up with both the technological changes and - more importantly - our authoritarian adversaries. In essence: what we really need is a more authoritarian central government with the power to make changes by edict so things don't get bogged down in that old-fashioned mess of debate and checks and balances. That's exactly what the large tech and media companies that carry his water are pushing for and - in perfect sync with the administration's narrative - filtering/grooming public discourse to reflect.

    Speech and firearms aren’t exactly comparable though so you can’t necessarily make apples to apples comparisons.

    Your right to use both are protected by the same single BoR. They are in the same liberty bucket and right next to each other where the founders put them for a reason.

    But prior restraint is not barred by the constitution. It is just uncommon for speech not related to legal cases and usually takes showing you’ve already violated the law with your speech and it can be shown you are likely to again.

    I recognize that the phrase "prior restraint" has - historically - a very specific meaning and narrow, limited use over the centuries. While it's not a perfect fit, the current government is clearly more than happy to embrace that surgical tool as a nation-wide bludgeon, wielded by its oligarchial partners in tech/media.

    unless you are Trump

    We could spend hours dissecting whether or not allowing trolls to deface a public entity's social media postings is a 1A violation or not. No person inclined to troll Trump on his own posts was ever, or could ever have been, prevented from taking to Twitter on their own and saying any damn thing they wanted in objection to his comments. Are you aware that the White House disables feedback/comments on Biden's remarks when they're shared on YouTube? Hear the snowflakes whining about that? Of course not. Because turning off comments is a native feature of those platforms. Biden's people are using it, too.
     

    kcbrown

    Super Genius
    Jun 16, 2012
    1,393
    Nope. You can’t defame someone. You also can’t issue threats of violence. A court would weigh in how imminent the threat of violence is or intention to intimidate.

    If the nature of the speech is communication of a criminal conspiracy that also isn’t legal.

    Speech is still regulated by the government and the constitution is clear some of that is fine. The rest SCOTUS has agree is not protected speech over the centuries. A lot of since
    The early days.

    As a general rule, you can't use speech to materially harm someone else. Defamation (use of false speech to ruin someone's reputation) and intimidation through threats of violence (forcing someone to change their behavior according to your will instead of their own) are effectively that.

    Carry itself harms nobody. Showing a weapon in such a way as to intimidate someone is the same as threatening violence, but we have a specific term for that: "brandishing". And that is expressly illegal for the same reasons that violence-threatening speech is.

    And just like it is impermissible to require a permit for all, or even a large subset of, speech for the purpose of preventing or controlling threatening speech, so too is it impermissible to require a permit for carry for the purpose of preventing or controlling threatening displays of weapons. Both are impermissible prior restraints on a fundamental right.
     

    Bob A

    όυ φροντισ
    MDS Supporter
    Patriot Picket
    Nov 11, 2009
    30,690
    As a general rule, you can't use speech to materially harm someone else. Defamation (use of false speech to ruin someone's reputation) and intimidation through threats of violence (forcing someone to change their behavior according to your will instead of their own) are effectively that.

    Carry itself harms nobody. Showing a weapon in such a way as to intimidate someone is the same as threatening violence, but we have a specific term for that: "brandishing". And that is expressly illegal for the same reasons that violence-threatening speech is.

    And just like it is impermissible to require a permit for all, or even a large subset of, speech for the purpose of preventing or controlling threatening speech, so too is it impermissible to require a permit for carry for the purpose of preventing or controlling threatening displays of weapons. Both are impermissible prior restraints on a fundamental right.

    All very well in theory, of course, but the real world seems to be far different.
    Defamation in political speech seems to be just fine, as long as it is utilised toward the right candidate.

    One can argue that the media has been complicit in intimidation in the electoral process. An anecdotal example of that was seen in MoCo during the last election cycle. Despite the fact that about one-third of the votes usually cast are for the Republican candidates in MD, I searched my home ground, covering four or five square miles, and found absolutely zero signs for any Republican candidate; I did see, on Rockville Pike, the only Trump sign, nailed to a telephone pole out of reach of passers-by.

    Threats of violence seem to be mostly peaceful, or terrifyingly insurrectionist, determined solely by the political bent of the persons involved.

    I'm tired of hearing from the hedge lawyers about the airy-fairy constitutional protections, when the last year has demonstrated that it all falls apart when one side is permitted to be violent, and the other side gets the vilification.

    Just saying.

    I might as well go ahead and mention my disappointment with the SCOTUS, who seem disinclined to show any backbone when pushed by nationwide more than probable electoral fraud, except on the part of the screaming Chief "Justice" whose ranting seems to have filleted the spines of his associates.
     

    kcbrown

    Super Genius
    Jun 16, 2012
    1,393
    All very well in theory, of course, but the real world seems to be far different.
    Defamation in political speech seems to be just fine, as long as it is utilised toward the right candidate.

    Sure, but what we're really talking about here (well, what I was talking about, at any rate) is what laws are permissible, not whether the laws in question are enforced consistently.


    One can argue that the media has been complicit in intimidation in the electoral process. An anecdotal example of that was seen in MoCo during the last election cycle. Despite the fact that about one-third of the votes usually cast are for the Republican candidates in MD, I searched my home ground, covering four or five square miles, and found absolutely zero signs for any Republican candidate; I did see, on Rockville Pike, the only Trump sign, nailed to a telephone pole out of reach of passers-by.

    Threats of violence seem to be mostly peaceful, or terrifyingly insurrectionist, determined solely by the political bent of the persons involved.

    I'm tired of hearing from the hedge lawyers about the airy-fairy constitutional protections, when the last year has demonstrated that it all falls apart when one side is permitted to be violent, and the other side gets the vilification.

    Just saying.

    I might as well go ahead and mention my disappointment with the SCOTUS, who seem disinclined to show any backbone when pushed by nationwide more than probable electoral fraud, except on the part of the screaming Chief "Justice" whose ranting seems to have filleted the spines of his associates.

    Couldn't agree more.
     

    pcfixer

    Ultimate Member
    May 24, 2009
    5,948
    Marylandstan
    While many say (including Biden a few evenings ago) say that no Constitutional Right is absolute...especially the 2nd Amendment...it brings up the opportunity to throw it back in their faces. When someone on the Left says something like that...we need to remind them that statement means it's OK to place "reasonable" restrictions on the right to an abortion...or the 13th Amendment and its ban on slavery is open to "reasonable" restrictions on that ban and some slavery is reasonable and acceptable.

    After all...it's their logic.


    :thumbsup::thumbsup::goodpost::patriot: Just wonder?? What is reasonable? And OR what then is reasonable doubt when talking about restrictions in anything in Bill of Rights?
     

    777GSOTB

    Active Member
    Mar 23, 2014
    363
    :thumbsup::thumbsup::goodpost::patriot: Just wonder?? What is reasonable? And OR what then is reasonable doubt when talking about restrictions in anything in Bill of Rights?

    Taxes, such as license taxes, upon a right aren't reasonable.

    U.S. Supreme Court
    319 U.S. 105 (1943)
    MURDOCK v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 319 U.S. 105 (1943)

    "The tax imposed by the City of Jeannette is a flat license tax, the payment of which is a condition of the exercise of these constitutional privileges. The power to tax the exercise of a privilege is the power to control or suppress its enjoyment."

    "It is contended, however, that the fact that the license tax can suppress or control this activity is unimportant [319 U.S. 105, 113] if it does not do so. But that is to disregard the nature of this tax. It is a license tax – a flat tax imposed on the exercise of a privilege granted by the Bill of Rights. A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal constitution."

    "It is claimed, however, that the ultimate question in determining the constitutionality of this license tax is whether the state has given something for which it can ask a return. That principle has wide applicability. State Tax Commission v. Aldrich, 316 U.S. 174, 62 S.Ct. 1008, 139 A.L.R. 1436, and cases cited. But it is quite irrelevant here. This tax is not a charge for the enjoyment of a privilege or benefit bestowed by the state. The privilege in question exists apart from state authority. It is guaranteed the people by the federal constitution."
     

    Jim12

    Let Freedom Ring
    MDS Supporter
    Jan 30, 2013
    33,862
    Tossing this out there as a relevant resource:

    https://reason.com/volokh/2021/05/01/the-right-to-bear-arms-by-stephen-halbrook-book-review/


    The Volokh Conspiracy

    Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent

    Second Amendment
    "The Right to Bear Arms" by Stephen Halbrook: Book Review

    A book that may may help decide the Supreme Court's upcoming right to carry case.

    David Kopel | 5.1.2021 8:16 PM

    "The U.S. Supreme Court has granted certiorari to hear a major case on the right to bear arms, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Corlett. By happy coincidence, the best book on the legal history of the right has just been published: Stephen P. Halbrook, The Right to Bear Arms: A Constitutional Right of the People or a Privilege of the Ruling Class? Post Hill Press, 371 pages, $17.99, paperback.

    Halbrook's book will be central to the Supreme Court case, just as Halbrook's previous work was for the Supreme Court's decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago—not only in direct citations, but also in the many original sources that Halbrook was the first to write about, and which the Court incorporated in its opinions. Indeed, Halbrook's scholarship was a foundation of McDonald case, for he had demonstrated in irrefutable detail that Congress passed the Fourteenth Amendment for the explicit purpose of, inter alia, protecting the right to arms of former slaves to keep and bear arms for personal and family defense.

    As some readers may know, I have coauthored one book and two law review articles with Halbrook. (Supreme Court Gun Cases (2003); Miller versus Texas: Police Violence, Race Relations, Capital Punishment, and Gun-toting in Texas in the Nineteenth Century—and Today, 9 Journal of Law and Policy 737 (2001); Tench Coxe and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms in the Early Republic, 7 William and Mary Bill of Rights Journal 347 (1999).)

    Before becoming a lawyer, Halbrook was a philosophy professor at Tuskegee, Howard, and George Mason universities, and The Right to Bear Arms reflects his background. The book is legal history from early England to 2021, methodically and logically presented. The book is not about pro/con social science studies, and although it engages with post-Heller cases on the right to bear arms, most of the book covers the pre-Heller period.

    At 377 pages, The Right to Bear Arms is the right length to thoroughly address its topic, supported by meticulous footnotes. Given Halbrook's role since 1981 as the leading modern scholar of Second Amendment legal history, it is no surprise that some parts of the Right to Bear Arms are derived from Halbrook's prior detailed work on particular subjects. For example, he addressed the American Revolution and the origin of the Second Amendment in The Founders' Second Amendment, addressed Reconstruction and the Fourteenth Amendment in Securing Civil Rights: Freedmen, the Fourteenth Amendment, & the Right to Bear Arms, and the 1886 Supreme Court case Presser v. Illinois (against armed public parades) with the only law review to provide the full history of the case.

    With citations in 122 federal cases, Halbrook also has a 3-0 record as the lead attorney in Supreme Court cases, including Printz v. United States, which held that the federal government may not order state and local officials to enforce federal laws. That case secured the legal foundation for decisions of many state and local governments not to assist the federal enforcement of various laws involving immigration, marijuana, or gun control. Any serious person involved in the legal debate over the right to bear arms will have to address the arguments in Halbrook's latest book.

    Halbrook begins the story in the late thirteenth century, in the reign of England's King Edward I. About a third of the book is devoted to legal history of the United Kingdom, through the twenty-first century. Although the American Second Amendment was expressly intended and interpreted as being broader than the English right, the English right is the most important ancestor of the American one...."

    https://reason.com/volokh/2021/05/01/the-right-to-bear-arms-by-stephen-halbrook-book-review/
     

    Occam

    Not Even ONE Indictment
    MDS Supporter
    Feb 24, 2018
    20,239
    Montgomery County
    While we're reminding folks of whose work helped give us Heller, it would be a serious disservice to gloss over Joyce Lee Malcolm, the "nice girl who saved the second amendment." She's an encyclopedic scholar of Britain's history leading up to, and our own history of and since the Revolution by which we parted ways. Her work played a direct role in preserving our individual right's protections by the SCOTUS.

    https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2018/04/16/the-nice-girl-who-saved-the-second-amendment/
     

    HaveBlue

    HaveBlue
    Dec 4, 2014
    733
    Virginia
    Nope. You can’t defame someone. You also can’t issue threats of violence. A court would weigh in how imminent the threat of violence is or intention to intimidate.

    If the nature of the speech is communication of a criminal conspiracy that also isn’t legal.

    Speech is still regulated by the government and the constitution is clear some of that is fine. The rest SCOTUS has agree is not protected speech over the centuries. A lot of since
    The early days.

    Speech is not regulated. The is a tightly limited combination of content (in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy) and audience (voluntary vs involuntary or audience size).

    Those ‘restrictions’ are about planning non-speech related crimes and deeply offending people.

    I can walk down the street and say whatever I please to a friend or talk to the wind.
     

    Bob A

    όυ φροντισ
    MDS Supporter
    Patriot Picket
    Nov 11, 2009
    30,690
    I'd like to point out that Halbrook has written several books with "the right to bear arms" in the title. The book discussed above is a brand-new edition, published in paperback a week or so ago, and is available thru Amazon Smile, which will donate a fraction of my purchase price to the Second Amendment Foundation. This is probably the edition to get, if you must just get one.

    While I'm at it, I always mention his landmark studies Gun Control in the Third Reich, Target Switzerland, and Gun Control in Nazi-Occupied France to see what has been attempted. It's enlightening to see how closely Maryland has followed the Nazi program. It's also interesting to read about the Swiss in WWII. They were much more at risk than people are aware, and the way they armed and defended their country and prevented invasion is fascinating. Too bad they gave it up to suck up more Euros.
     
    Last edited:

    wjackcooper

    Active Member
    Feb 9, 2011
    689
    “Barrett and Gorsuch have to choose between originalism and gun rights.”

    Another progressive propaganda pump has counted to 5, panicked and is now trying to put a pro “gun control” spin on history.* The writer claims Scalia got it wrong and read the 2A backwards.* Progressives (including some historians and judges) have looked at the odds and now seem ready to mostly abandon their interest-balancing via intermediate scrutiny [public safety v the 2A] approach in favor of distorting the historical record.

    Jim12 and Occam thanks for the links!

    Regards
    Jack

    *https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/04/barrett-gorsuch-heller-originalism-scalia-guns.html

    **Ninth Circuit holds there is no right to bear arms outside the home – Reason.com
    https://reason.com/volokh/2021/04/0...-there-is-no-right-to-bear-arms/#more-8109659
     

    Jim12

    Let Freedom Ring
    MDS Supporter
    Jan 30, 2013
    33,862
    While we're reminding folks of whose work helped give us Heller, it would be a serious disservice to gloss over Joyce Lee Malcolm, the "nice girl who saved the second amendment." She's an encyclopedic scholar of Britain's history leading up to, and our own history of and since the Revolution by which we parted ways. Her work played a direct role in preserving our individual right's protections by the SCOTUS.

    https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2018/04/16/the-nice-girl-who-saved-the-second-amendment/

    Good info. Thanks for posting it. I bookmarked it.

    Too bad the Duke Law Firearms Policy program speakers a week or so ago seemed to be so short on history.
     

    Jim12

    Let Freedom Ring
    MDS Supporter
    Jan 30, 2013
    33,862
    I'd like to oint out that Halbrook has written several books with "the right to bear arms" in the title. The book discussed above is a brand-new edition, published in paperback a week or so ago, and is available thru Amazon Smile, which will donate a fraction of my purchase price to the Second Amendment Foundation. This is probably the edition to get, if you must just get one.

    While I'm at it, I always mention his landmark studies Gun Control in the Third Reich, Target Switzerland, and Gun Control in Nazi-Occupied France to see what has been attempted. It's enlightening to see how closely Maryland has followed the Nazi program. It's also interesting to read about the Swiss in WWII. They were much more at risk than people are aware, and the way they armed and defended their country and prevented invasion is fascinating. Too bad they gave it up to suck up more Euros.

    I ordered mine, and everything I buy from Amazon automatically generates a Smile donation to SAF.
     

    Maestro Pistolero

    Active Member
    Mar 20, 2012
    876
    "In the clothing or in a pocket" does not necessarily mean concealed. Concealed tends to mean totally concealed. "In the clothing or in a pocket may refer to partially concealed arms
    That is a tortured read on this language that I hope no court adopts, and which would be an attack on reason itself.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,925
    Messages
    7,259,296
    Members
    33,349
    Latest member
    christian04

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom