Saturday, January 22, 2011

What do you call a bus full of lawyers...

 “1 down and 534 to go”, in reference to the Giffords shooting.  With no conviction of a crime, or even charges--a Massachusetts gun owner  has lost his right to own guns based on that line in his blog.

This is a major reason we resist registration and licensing.  He has been deemed 'unsuitable' due to political speech--I believe the speech in question to be tasteless, but constitutionally protected.

If the second amendment allows someone's guns to be rounded up due to some government official's opinion of suitability, what exactly does it protect?  

There are other bill of rights issues involved as well--should the government be allowed to revoke other licenses based on someone speaking freely, if they are meeting the standards of the license?    Should a driver's license be revoked if someone is accused of driving drunk or speeding, with no arrest, charges or conviction?


  1. Amen. To all those who see no problem with registration and licensing of firearms and claim that it won't lead to confiscation, look no further than this incident.

  2. Thank you for your support!

  3. Anonymous4:50 PM

    In this case, if what you say is true--and I don't doubt it at all--his completely ignorant and irresponsible speech, suggesting more legislators should be shot, seem a clear and obvious indication of what he would like to do. What comes out of the mouth is what's going on in the mind, is it not?

    He got his right to own a gun taken away--rightly and intelligently and not a day too soon--just as he should have.

    Perhaps one day he'll learn to think and think more clearly and then speak, again, more responsibly and intelligently.

    I doubt it but it could happen.

  4. You've interpreted his statement that more legislators should be shot, rather than that we need to rid ourselves of incumbents. You may be right--but you may also be wrong, and we generally require things like that to be proven.

    What kind of constitutional right is it that lets a government official remove or restrict it at will, with no due process and no recourse--without even charging someone with a crime?

    What kind of rights are they that let you pick one or the other, but not both at once?

    What happened to "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."?

    Going back to the discussion we had on your blog, this is another example where you don't defend freedom if it makes you uncomfortable, or if it isn't something YOU want to do.

  5. It's the old "you don't yell 'fire!' in a movie theater". A Congressional Representative was shot in the head. Someone else calling for "one down and 534 to go", on the heels of that shooting seems clear what he or she was saying and is patently both offensive and should, in fact, be punishable at least by having his gun rights taken away. Perhaps now he will think before he speaks and speaks more responsibly. I hope that's the case.

  6. Anyone should defend anyone's right to free speech, you're right, unless and until they start suggesting or saying outright that someone or another should be shot. That's a huge difference.

  7. Let me be clear--this isn't about me "being uncomfortable" with this speech. Far from it. I can't believe you would even suggest such a thing. This is, again, about someone irresponsibly suggesting more government representatives should be shot. It's irresponsible, at minimum. It's unconscionable.

  8. 'shouting fire' was overturned-- I am astounded that you think that a cop on his own should have that sort of power, without a trial. What else should the chief of police be able to do to people on his own say-so, without arresting them, without charging them with anything, without even claiming a law had been violated? Who gets to decide and enforce the line between unpopular protected speech and dangerous speech? The first and fourth amendment issues here are at least as big an issue as the second, and if a cop has that sort of power the bill of rights is severely weakened. Is it OK that cops can claim that money is drug proceeds, or that a car had drugs in it and be able to confiscate the car or money?