Guns in the U.S need to go away now (or in a few years :))

[Ramo]

The Court was trying to justify obscenity laws and cited profanity laws....

"The guaranties of freedom of expression 10 in effect in 10 of the 14 States which by 1792 had ratified the Constitution, gave no absolute protection for every utterance. Thirteen of the 14 States provided for the prosecution of libel, 11 and all of those States made either blasphemy or profanity, or both, statutory crimes. 12 As early as [354 U.S. 476, 483] 1712, Massachusetts made it criminal to publish "any filthy, obscene, or profane song, pamphlet, libel or mock sermon" in imitation or mimicking of religious services. Acts and Laws of the Province of Mass. Bay, c. CV, 8 (1712), Mass. Bay Colony Charters & Laws 399 (1814). Thus, profanity and obscenity were related offenses. "

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Wraith
--"Sorry -- I made a mistake. There was no recent Supreme Court ruling, but a circuit ruling."

Right. Now what about that precedent you mentioned as being overturned? The Supreme Court has never issued a decision that stated explicitly one way or another on this issue.

I tried searching for the Supreme Court rulings I am alluding to. I know I have read some of them before. One case was in the 1930's, another one was 1940's (I think), and another one in the 1970's.

I tried searching for them on the actual Supreme Court government website, but for some reason, the links were not working.

[David Floyd]

Ramo,

Actually, profanity has been considered libel, and therefore isn't protected by the First Amendment.

I don't think there's any credible debate about whether I can say "What the ****" - what you refer to is not being able to call someone a mother****er, I believe.

Imran,

Anyway, I think that everything under fully automatic should be allowed, but there should be licensing and registration of guns

I would think that licensing/registration would be unconstitutional under the right to privacy/9th Amendment - this is different from cars, which are driven on public roads. If you drive a car on your own land and aren't endangering anyone, then AFAIK no federal or state driving laws apply to you.
Further, why the distinction between automatic and non-automatic weapons? Can you back that up Constitutionally?

[David Floyd]

One case was in the 1930's,

IIRC you are referring to the sawed off shotgun case, which was incorrectly decided.

[Wraith]

--"One case was in the 1930's, another one was 1940's (I think), and another one in the 1970's."

The one in the '30s/'40s was US v. Miller (1939).
The other might be Lewis v. US (1980). However, that one pretty much restated Miller (as far as being extremely narrow in scope). The Second Amendment part of this ruling dealt with a law that forbid convicted felons from owning firearms.

Neither of them make a statement on the collective v. individual right of the Second Amendment, but the language of Miller (Lewis didn't really cover the issue) is more friendly to the individual right stance.

Edit:
For all that the gun-control crowd likes to deride the NRA for only using part of the Second Amendment, they (the gun-control crowd) are quite happy to selectively quote the Miller decision. I've seen a number of web sites (from HCI to the ACLU) quote "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia" without noting that the full comment is "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a “shotgun having a barrel of less that eighteen inches in length� at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument." They also don't seem to note the "in the absence of any evidence" part, since Miller was murdered before the case came before the Supreme Court, and therefore no defense was presented.

Wraith
"They were really only teeny little A-bombs, honest!"
-- Charles Dart ("Startide Rising")

[Imran Siddiqui]

Further, why the distinction between automatic and non-automatic weapons? Can you back that up Constitutionally?

No, more of a public safety issue. I wouldn't wish to see automatics being sold ever.

I would think that licensing/registration would be unconstitutional under the right to privacy/9th Amendment - this is different from cars, which are driven on public roads. If you drive a car on your own land and aren't endangering anyone, then AFAIK no federal or state driving laws apply to you.

Funny that you bring this up and probably are against the whole idea of introducing a right to privacy which came up under Griswold and Roe. The right to privacy, btw, isn't a 9th Amendment issue (that was a concurring opinion), but rather due to a 'cornicopia' of amendments that guarentee those rights.

And no, I don't think that licensing or registration would be unconstitutional under the right to privacy, because I don't see how it could be a right to privacy issue. All doctors and lawyers are licensed.... I didn't say the federal government would do it.

[Lung]

Personally, i think driving a car should be a right because, in Australia at least, most jobs seem to require a driver's license regardless of whether the job involves driving or not

My point is, what sort of logic enables something as innocuous as driving being a privilege whilst owning a gun is a right?

Surely, the sensible path is somewhere in the middle between no guns and all guns. The image we get of (the more redneck variety, at least) americans is one of having their own personal tank, or at least wanting to if they could afford it. There seems to be plenty of support in the U.S for unlimited quantity and types of arms. I don't know how true it is, but it sounds ridiculous. However, the suggestion i've heard about even policemen not having arms is just as ridiculous.

Australian gun laws have been toughened, and state laws have broadened the scope for police searches of individuals, which seems to have made it difficult for hoods to carry guns, and even knives. The gun laws seem to have at least increased the price of guns beyond the affordability of most gang members.

Nothing substitutes for common sense

[David Floyd]

No, more of a public safety issue. I wouldn't wish to see automatics being sold ever.

Cars, alcohol, cigarettes, and cell phones are also "public safety issues"

Funny that you bring this up and probably are against the whole idea of introducing a right to privacy which came up under Griswold and Roe. The right to privacy, btw, isn't a 9th Amendment issue (that was a concurring opinion), but rather due to a 'cornicopia' of amendments that guarentee those rights.

Actually I agree with Griswold and, to an extent, Roe - I've even cited them a coupla times. Also I believe the phrase you are looking for is "penumbra of rights", although I don't think that was from Griswold, and I know it wasn't from Roe. I also think the 9th is a much better place to justify the right to privacy, anyway.

And no, I don't think that licensing or registration would be unconstitutional under the right to privacy, because I don't see how it could be a right to privacy issue. All doctors and lawyers are licensed.... I didn't say the federal government would do it.

But you (I assume) accept the 14th Amendment, which would mean States couldn't violate privacy rights either.

[Wraith]

--"My point is, what sort of logic enables something as innocuous as driving being a privilege whilst owning a gun is a right?"

Driving a car, as far as licencing purpose goes, involves using public roads (in the US, at least, you do not need a drivers license if you don't use the public roads). Therefore, the government has a valid claim in licensing issues. Using other people's property (in this case, the roads) is never a right.
Gun ownership does not inherently make use of anyone else's property. In fact, gun ownership in and of itself does not affect anyone else, period. It's just private property.

As far as Australian gun laws, I've seen some stats that show the tougher arms controls were actually detrimental as far as overall levels of crime were concerned. May have to dig those back up for specifics.

Wraith
"Cynicism is an unpleasant way of saying the truth. "
- Lillian Hellman

[David Floyd]

Nothing substitutes for common sense

Except following the Constitution, of course

[Imran Siddiqui]

But you (I assume) accept the 14th Amendment, which would mean States couldn't violate privacy rights either.

And there is nothing that says licensing and registration violate privacy rights.

I point to examples of doctors, lawyers, teachers, etc.

Cars, alcohol, cigarettes, and cell phones are also "public safety issues"

Yes, and your point? I don't see anything wrong with the governments of the US to regulate cars, alcohol, cigarettes, or cell phones.

Also I believe the phrase you are looking for is "penumbra of rights", although I don't think that was from Griswold, and I know it wasn't from Roe. I also think the 9th is a much better place to justify the right to privacy, anyway.

I believe it was a Griswold reference, which was used in Roe.

And using the 9th instead of 'penumbra' leads to states trampling over that right to privacy by the 10th Amendment.

[David Floyd]

And there is nothing that says licensing and registration violate privacy rights.

Of course it doesn't - then again privacy isn't explicity mentioned in the Constitution either, but it's still a right.

I point to examples of doctors, lawyers, teachers, etc.

And I'm not sure how people in those professions can be rqeuired to be registered.

Yes, and your point? I don't see anything wrong with the governments of the US to regulate cars, alcohol, cigarettes, or cell phones.

So, to clarify, you believe anything that could possibly cause some sort of risk can be regulated??

I believe it was a Griswold reference, which was used in Roe.

Maybe, I'd have to check.

And using the 9th instead of 'penumbra' leads to states trampling over that right to privacy by the 10th Amendment.

Not if you accept the 14th Amendment, because the ability to restrict privacy becomes a right denied to the States. If you don't accept the 14th, it's irrelevant because in that case the 9th applies only to the federal government in terms of restrictions.

[Ramo]

I don't think there's any credible debate about whether I can say "What the ****" - what you refer to is not being able to call someone a mother****er, I believe.

No, the debate is whether the state can pass a law criminalizing the word "fvck," which I think it can since the justification of obscenity laws were based on profanity laws.

[David Floyd]

No, the debate is whether the state can pass a law criminalizing the word "fvck," which I think it can since the justification of obscenity laws were based on profanity laws.

State profanity laws which really can in no way be Constitutionally justified, IF one accepts the 14th Amendment.
Federal anti-profanity laws would clearly be unconstitutional.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Ramo
No, the debate is whether the state can pass a law criminalizing the word "fvck," which I think it can since the justification of obscenity laws were based on profanity laws.

I think Michigan has such a law, IIRC. In any case, I don't think that a challege to those laws has reach the SCOTUS.