Go Back   Maryland Shooters > Gun Rights and Legislation > National 2A Issues
Don't Have An Account? Register Here

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old April 30th, 2021, 01:39 PM #441
rbird7282's Avatar
rbird7282 rbird7282 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 12,029
rbird7282 rbird7282 is offline
Senior Member
rbird7282's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 12,029
Quote:
Originally Posted by HaveBlue View Post
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.

Iíve 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
__________________
MSI Member
NRA Member
rbird7282 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 30th, 2021, 01:48 PM #442
Occam Occam is offline
Recovering Lurker
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Montgomery County
Posts: 12,980
Occam Occam is offline
Recovering Lurker
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Montgomery County
Posts: 12,980
Quote:
Originally Posted by lazarus View Post
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.
Occam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 30th, 2021, 01:59 PM #443
lazarus lazarus is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 7,624
lazarus lazarus is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 7,624
Quote:
Originally Posted by Occam View Post
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.
lazarus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 30th, 2021, 02:04 PM #444
TheOriginalMexicanBob's Avatar
TheOriginalMexicanBob TheOriginalMexicanBob is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Frederick
Posts: 19,234
TheOriginalMexicanBob TheOriginalMexicanBob is offline
Senior Member
TheOriginalMexicanBob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Frederick
Posts: 19,234
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.
__________________
Socialism is like a Jedi Mind Trick...it only works on the weak minded. TheOriginalMexican Bob
I'm an American...your approval is not required. TheOriginalMexicanBob
Good people do not need laws to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws. Plato
The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false-face for the urge to rule it. Power is what messiahs really seek...not the chance to serve. H. L. Mencken
TheOriginalMexicanBob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 30th, 2021, 02:08 PM #445
Muleskinner's Avatar
Muleskinner Muleskinner is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: East of the Mississippi West of the Atlantic..
Posts: 4,251
Muleskinner Muleskinner is offline
Senior Member
Muleskinner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: East of the Mississippi West of the Atlantic..
Posts: 4,251
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbird7282 View Post
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..
__________________
http://markwfarrar.com/pictures/GOA%20Life%20Member.jpg

" When tyrants ask you to yield one jot of your liberty and you consent thereto, it is the first link forged in the chain that will eventually hold you hostage"

Sam Houston
Muleskinner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 30th, 2021, 02:21 PM #446
Occam Occam is offline
Recovering Lurker
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Montgomery County
Posts: 12,980
Occam Occam is offline
Recovering Lurker
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Montgomery County
Posts: 12,980
Quote:
Originally Posted by lazarus View Post
Now of course you can still violate that gag order and youíll face the consequences. Thatís 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.

Quote:
Speech and firearms arenít exactly comparable though so you canít 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.

Quote:
But prior restraint is not barred by the constitution. It is just uncommon for speech not related to legal cases and usually takes showing youíve 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.

Quote:
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.
Occam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 30th, 2021, 05:54 PM #447
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is online now
Super Genius
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,332
kcbrown kcbrown is online now
Super Genius
kcbrown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,332
Quote:
Originally Posted by lazarus View Post
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.
kcbrown is online now   Reply With Quote
Old April 30th, 2021, 06:30 PM #448
Bob A's Avatar
Bob A Bob A is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 18,303
Bob A Bob A is offline
Senior Member
Bob A's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 18,303
Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
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.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by alucard0822 View Post
Big difference between "will use violence to impose my political beliefs on others" and "will use violence to defend myself from those imposing their political beliefs on me". The former is the main ingredient of genocide, the latter is the only thing that has ever prevented it.
The Hand That Signs The Paycheck Rules The World

Originally Posted by Deep Lurker:
Quote:
Disclaimer: ďNo criminals will be harmed in the passage of these gun control bills.Ē
Bob A is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 30th, 2021, 07:02 PM #449
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is online now
Super Genius
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,332
kcbrown kcbrown is online now
Super Genius
kcbrown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,332
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob A View Post
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.


Quote:
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.
kcbrown is online now   Reply With Quote
Old May 1st, 2021, 08:16 AM #450
pcfixer's Avatar
pcfixer pcfixer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Marylandstan
Posts: 4,941
pcfixer pcfixer is offline
Senior Member
pcfixer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Marylandstan
Posts: 4,941
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOriginalMexicanBob View Post
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.

Just wonder?? What is reasonable? And OR what then is reasonable doubt when talking about restrictions in anything in Bill of Rights?
__________________
Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of tyrannical government.

ďBy the way I call it "moral obedience" rather than "civil disobedience" because it is God's law". Those who try to promote un-natural laws on us are committing moral disobedience. It is our duty to resist immoral laws and actions.Ē By Richard Fry.
pcfixer is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

  Home Page > Forum List > Gun Rights and Legislation > National 2A Issues


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:01 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
© 2021, Congregate Media, LP Privacy Policy Terms of Service