heliopolissolutions
Regular Member
I've been out of the world for a while, been taking a break from California's RKBA battle.
Went to Istanbul, saw the Grand Prix. It was awesome.
I hope all you guys and gals are all well and healthy.
I was sitting in bed this evening and I started to have some thoughts, doubting thoughts which disturbed me and to me, bore some consideration.
In Schenk v US, Holmes indicated that to incite panic by yelling fire in a theater would in no way be protected by First Amendment rights. Thus limiting the 1st amendment. In...Brandenburg(?) V (?) (Sorry memory is fuzzy) another justice indicated that speech creating imminent lawlessness or producing lawlessness would likewise be unprotected. Thus limiting the first amendment.
In regards to 2nd Amendment rights, the right to keep and bear arms is protected (ideally).
But if those acts incite lawlessness or produce panic. ..is it still protected?
Perhaps we might think that it is a matter of reason that a panic should not result from the bearing of arms. But that is a highly qualitative assessment. One could also argue that people should not panic upon hearing "fire" and should be reasonable.
So now I am...in a quandry? Do we boil it down to intent, and discard such thoughts?
I'm always willing to question my beliefs, but in doing so I find myself a wee bit disturbed.
Can anyone offer thoughts on this?
Sent from my Droid
Went to Istanbul, saw the Grand Prix. It was awesome.
I hope all you guys and gals are all well and healthy.
I was sitting in bed this evening and I started to have some thoughts, doubting thoughts which disturbed me and to me, bore some consideration.
In Schenk v US, Holmes indicated that to incite panic by yelling fire in a theater would in no way be protected by First Amendment rights. Thus limiting the 1st amendment. In...Brandenburg(?) V (?) (Sorry memory is fuzzy) another justice indicated that speech creating imminent lawlessness or producing lawlessness would likewise be unprotected. Thus limiting the first amendment.
In regards to 2nd Amendment rights, the right to keep and bear arms is protected (ideally).
But if those acts incite lawlessness or produce panic. ..is it still protected?
Perhaps we might think that it is a matter of reason that a panic should not result from the bearing of arms. But that is a highly qualitative assessment. One could also argue that people should not panic upon hearing "fire" and should be reasonable.
So now I am...in a quandry? Do we boil it down to intent, and discard such thoughts?
I'm always willing to question my beliefs, but in doing so I find myself a wee bit disturbed.
Can anyone offer thoughts on this?
Sent from my Droid