Tweet
It is perfectly legal to yell "fire!" in a movie theater. Especially if there IS a fire. What is not legal is to yell with the intent to incite panic when there is an obvious chance that people will get hurt.
Using this analogy is a specious argument, though. The right to be issued a CCW does not automatically entail that in all cases someone else's rights will be infringed. The assertion that even a significant minority of others will have their rights infringed by CCW holders is a fact that cannot be backed up with statistics since traditionally CCW holders are one of the safest, most law-abiding demographics in American society.
You cannot have freedom and safety. They are incompatible concepts, so a balance is sought between them. But the point of the Constitution is to codify which rights are culturally sacred, and in doing so, says that your desire for safety cannot supersede these fundamental rights.
Especially in California, the CCW (and firearm, in general) history is not one soft infringement. If you want laws that punish bad behavior, that is fine. But arguing for laws that prevent bad behavior conflicts tremendously with the concept of freedom. And in the case of what is granted by the Second Amendment, preventative measures must take backseat to enshrined and ennumerated rights.
So, more simply, demonstrate how the issuance of a CCW to me infringes on anyone else's rights. You cannot use the hypothetical of an incompetent boogeyman to prevent the exercise a right that the Founders said was yours to exercise.
Using this analogy is a specious argument, though. The right to be issued a CCW does not automatically entail that in all cases someone else's rights will be infringed. The assertion that even a significant minority of others will have their rights infringed by CCW holders is a fact that cannot be backed up with statistics since traditionally CCW holders are one of the safest, most law-abiding demographics in American society.
You cannot have freedom and safety. They are incompatible concepts, so a balance is sought between them. But the point of the Constitution is to codify which rights are culturally sacred, and in doing so, says that your desire for safety cannot supersede these fundamental rights.
Especially in California, the CCW (and firearm, in general) history is not one soft infringement. If you want laws that punish bad behavior, that is fine. But arguing for laws that prevent bad behavior conflicts tremendously with the concept of freedom. And in the case of what is granted by the Second Amendment, preventative measures must take backseat to enshrined and ennumerated rights.
So, more simply, demonstrate how the issuance of a CCW to me infringes on anyone else's rights. You cannot use the hypothetical of an incompetent boogeyman to prevent the exercise a right that the Founders said was yours to exercise.
Comment