Second vs First Amendment confusion...

[BLFD1]

Ok, somewhere in all the Heller posts I read something along the lines that the individual right discussed in Heller only applies to 18th century firearms because that is what the founding fathers were writing about at the time...

If the 1st Amendment applies to modern types of "speech", internet, etc. how can the 2nd only apply to 18th century firearms?? It MUST apply to modern types as well.

I never understood the confusion in the 2nd Am. when the 1st Am. is obviously an individual right. :confused:

My head is spinning...:willy_nilly:

[bohoki]

Ok, somewhere in all the Heller posts I read something along the lines that the individual right discussed in Heller only applies to 18th century firearms because that is what the founding fathers were writing about at the time...

If the 1st Amendment applies to modern types of "speech", internet, etc. how can the 2nd only apply to 18th century firearms?? It MUST apply to modern types as well.

I never understood the confusion in the 2nd Am. when the 1st Am. is obviously an individual right. :confused:

My head is spinning...:willy_nilly:

my confusion is if felons have first amendment rights why don't they have second amendment rights

[Caanon]

how can the 2nd only apply to 18th century firearms?? It MUST apply to modern types as well.


It doesn't say that.


Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous,
that only those arms in existence in the 18th century
are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret
constitutional rights that way. Just as the First
Amendment protects modern forms of communications,
e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844,
849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern
forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27,
35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima
facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms,
even those that were not in existence at the time of the
founding.

[dfletcher]

Ok, somewhere in all the Heller posts I read something along the lines that the individual right discussed in Heller only applies to 18th century firearms because that is what the founding fathers were writing about at the time...

If the 1st Amendment applies to modern types of "speech", internet, etc. how can the 2nd only apply to 18th century firearms?? It MUST apply to modern types as well.

I never understood the confusion in the 2nd Am. when the 1st Am. is obviously an individual right. :confused:

My head is spinning...:willy_nilly:

I posted a reference to an interview with an anti - gun professor who tried to take the position - even though he said he read the opinion - that the 2nd should apply to only guns available at the time the 2nd was written. Which is of course foolish because he sure as heck wouldn't take the position that the 1st protected newspapers only.

[rayra]

just one of the many tired lies the Left tells about the 2nd amendment

Collective right
Militias only
Hunting and spoting only
Muskets only

They've used them all for decades, just as they've crafted the liberal lie that US v Miller said anything at all about Individual vs Collective.
The Liberals' entire position is a house of cards, a fraud, perpetrated by their supermajorities in government bureaucracies, media, education-indoctrination and the courts.

Hell now the perverse little bastards are claiming Evil Conservatives are guilty of 'judicial activism', as if it had never occurred anywhere until this decision. They're some very sick people, desperate for Power over us all.

[cbn620]

Heller doesn't say that. In fact it disputes that line of thought in there. It says the 2nd amendment protects the individual right to bear arms but does leave room for legislation and regulation. However, it explicitly protects the individual right to own weapons that are "common at the time".

[mymonkeyman]

That's not what Heller says, that's what upset gun control nuts say becuase they don't have any credible arguments. Here is what Heller says which is quite clear on the point:

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

For those who don't know, Kyllo held the use of specialized infrared imaging equipment on houses for evidence of marijuana growing was a 4th amendment search that required a warrant.

Reno v. ACLU held that the CDA, which prohibited transmitting "indecent" matter to minors on the internet to be unconstitutional, holding the First Amendment applied to the Internet just like printed publications and that the law was unconstitutionally vague and and unduly burdened protected speech.

[BLFD1]

It doesn't say that.

Originally Posted by Scalia from the Heller Opinion
Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous,
that only those arms in existence in the 18th century
are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret
constitutional rights that way. Just as the First
Amendment protects modern forms of communications,
e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844,
849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern
forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27,
35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima
facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms,
even those that were not in existence at the time of the
founding.

Thanks!! I couldn't find that for the life of me!!

In all the Heller posts I just remembered seeing that blurb, but then couldn't find it again. I'm glad it's not what I thought it was.

Thanks guys.