Ninth Circuit: Felons can have firearms.

[Bozz10mm]

That's because, as SCOTUS has often told us, no right is unlimited.
Many in this thread don't seem to understand that.

Joe Biden said that. The left seems to think that it means infringement of rights is unlimited.

 

[Maverick44]

That whole yelling fire thing is completely misunderstood. The case that stems from was Schenck v. United States, which had nothing to with fires or theaters. Schenck was arrested under the 1917 Espionage Act for distributing flyers that criticized the draft. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. said "the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.". He is who came up with the fire and a crowded theater thing.

Here's the thing though, that case was overturned in Brandenburg v. Ohio because it was an affront to the 1st Amendment. In case you're wondering, that case dealt with advocating violence and lawlessness, and the line between that and actually inciting violence and lawlessness. That line is where your rights end according to SCOTUS. That case also created the Brandenburg test which is still used today to determine whether inflammatory speech crosses that line.

Not being allowed to yell fire in a crowded theater is NOT the law, and it hasn't been for a long time. It is from a case that was overturned when the oldest members on this forum could barely call themselves adults. There can certainly be consequences for doing so. Depending on circumstance and what happens after the fact, you could face criminal charges or civil actions. What would make it criminal is fairly narrow, and has less to do with the speech itself, but more with the intent of the speech. Inciting panic without cause is a crime because of the harm it causes. Similarly, you cannot shoot somebody just because you dislike them. Your rights do not allow you to harm others without just cause (self defense).

If you want to read more into it, here you go. Please retire that tired old saying though. In the way it's used, it's mostly nonsense. It has been for 55 years.

Yelling “FIRE” in a Crowded Theater. Real or Myth?

You can't yell fire in a crowded theater. I'm sure you've heard somebody say that before when discussing free speech. Learn more.

www.whalenlawoffice.com

Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919)

Schenck v. United States: If speech is intended to result in a crime, and there is a clear and present danger that it actually will result in a crime, the First Amendment does not protect the speaker from government action.

supreme.justia.com

Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969)

Brandenburg v. Ohio: A state may not forbid speech advocating the use of force or unlawful conduct unless this advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.

supreme.justia.com

Brandenburg test

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[Havok1]

Basically says the same thing about the 1st ..no laws abridging freedom of speech but many laws and restrictions exists that do that very thing.

If you stood in the street and yelled to your neighbor you were going to kill him, you'd probably get arrested.

If you walked down the street naked..arrested

If you threatened a politician...you'd be arrested and charged.

Are these restrictions against the constitution?

I remember when Madonna threatened to blow up the White House and didn’t get arrested.

 

[Havok1]

That whole yelling fire thing is completely misunderstood. The case that stems from was Schenck v. United States, which had nothing to with fires or theaters. Schenck was arrested under the 1917 Espionage Act for distributing flyers that criticized the draft. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. said "the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.". He is who came up with the fire and a crowded theater thing.

Here's the thing though, that case was overturned in Brandenburg v. Ohio because it was an affront to the 1st Amendment. In case you're wondering, that case dealt with advocating violence and lawlessness, and the line between that and actually inciting violence and lawlessness. That line is where your rights end according to SCOTUS. That case also created the Brandenburg test which is still used today to determine whether inflammatory speech crosses that line.

Not being allowed to yell fire in a crowded theater is NOT the law, and it hasn't been for a long time. It is from a case that was overturned when the oldest members on this forum could barely call themselves adults. There can certainly be consequences for doing so. Depending on circumstance and what happens after the fact, you could face criminal charges or civil actions. What would make it criminal is fairly narrow, and has less to do with the speech itself, but more with the intent of the speech. Inciting panic without cause is a crime because of the harm it causes. Similarly, you cannot shoot somebody just because you dislike them. Your rights do not allow you to harm others without just cause (self defense).

If you want to read more into it, here you go. Please retire that tired old saying though. In the way it's used, it's mostly nonsense. It has been for 55 years.

Yelling “FIRE” in a Crowded Theater. Real or Myth?

You can't yell fire in a crowded theater. I'm sure you've heard somebody say that before when discussing free speech. Learn more.

www.whalenlawoffice.com

Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919)

Schenck v. United States: If speech is intended to result in a crime, and there is a clear and present danger that it actually will result in a crime, the First Amendment does not protect the speaker from government action.

supreme.justia.com

Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969)

Brandenburg v. Ohio: A state may not forbid speech advocating the use of force or unlawful conduct unless this advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.

supreme.justia.com

Brandenburg test

www.law.cornell.edu

This may be covered in one of the links you shared, but just thought I would add, that the whole thing about not being able to yell fire in a theater was also the opinion of a justice who wrote the DISSENTING opinion.

 

[popsgarland]

I'm not going to look this up again,yet, and I have it printed out somewhere that I'll find eventually. In the Texas constitution/bill of rights it states that a felon can not buy or own a fire arm but a felon can have one (only at their residence).

I know some will google it today, but I won't have time and when you find it, it's a long read but it's there.

 

[ZX9RCAM]

I'm not going to look this up again,yet, and I have it printed out somewhere that I'll find eventually. In the Texas constitution/bill of rights it states that a felon can not buy or own a fire arm but a felon can have one (only at their residence).

I know some will google it today, but I won't have time and when you find it, it's a long read but it's there.

So, the gun belongs to someone else, even though the felon lives alone?

 

[jrbfishn]

There is a HUGE difference between "limited use of your rights" and "punishing misuse of your rights".
Limiting the rights of incarcerated people or those still under Court supervision should be limited. It has been normal since the first jail was built. Part of "cruel and unusual punishment" in the Constitution.
Limiting the rights of FREE people should NEVER happen. Defining and punishing misuse of those rights is the basis for Law and Order. If a person can not be trusted to not misuse a right, that person should be locked up. Limiting the right to self defense with a firearm to even a felon that has fully paid their debt for past crimes is punishment after the punishment, limiting the right of a FREE person. And unusual. For most of the history of this Country, when someone was released from prison, they could, and were expected to gain arms for a variety of reasons.
Anyone government body that says "your Constitutional Rights are limited", is really saying "our control of you and your Rights is not limited".

If the Government can limit your rights, you have NO rights. You have temporary priveledge until they decide you don't.

And the don'ts are coming faster and faster. Look at how they are pushing "hate speech" and "misinformation" BS. How they pushed punishment for mot taking an unproven "vaccine" they had to lie about.

Limiting Rights and who has arms has NEVER
worked. Ever. And it won't. It is done strictly to gain control and appease people that want "something done" by people that are unwilling or too incompetent to do the right thing.




Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

 

[popsgarland]

So, the gun belongs to someone else, even though the felon lives alone?

Someone will have to lend he/her one. In theory. Or buy one for them.

 

[Maverick44]

I'm not going to look this up again,yet, and I have it printed out somewhere that I'll find eventually. In the Texas constitution/bill of rights it states that a felon can not buy or own a fire arm but a felon can have one (only at their residence).

I know some will google it today, but I won't have time and when you find it, it's a long read but it's there.

The Texas Constitution does not supersede the US Constitution.

I also could not find what you were referring to. There are 21 instances of the word felon/felonies being used in the Texas Constitution/BORs. Not a single one deals with firearms rights.

https://tlc.texas.gov/docs/legref/TxConst.pdf

 

[popsgarland]

The Texas Constitution does not supersede the US Constitution.

I also could not find what you were referring to. There are 21 instances of the word felon/felonies being used in the Texas Constitution/BORs. Not a single one deals with firearms rights.

https://tlc.texas.gov/docs/legref/TxConst.pdf

I did NOT say the Texas Constitution supersedes the US Constitution.

Please read what posted to understand what I said not just to answer.


You didn't look long enough. It isn't a quick read. I'll find it for you. eventually.

 

[jrbfishn]

I'm not going to look this up again,yet, and I have it printed out somewhere that I'll find eventually. In the Texas constitution/bill of rights it states that a felon can not buy or own a fire arm but a felon can have one (only at their residence).

I know some will google it today, but I won't have time and when you find it, it's a long read but it's there.

The Texas Penal or Government Code. I can't remember which.
After 5 years of the last day of Court ordered incarceration or Court supervision the can be in possession of a girearm IN THEIR RESIDENCE. Not outside of their residence.

So, the gun belongs to someone else, even though the felon lives alone?

Basically, yes. Tjey can be in possession but not legally buy. At least by Federal Law.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

 

[Maverick44]

I did NOT say the Texas Constitution supersedes the US Constitution.

Please read what posted to understand what I said not just to answer.


You didn't look long enough. It isn't a quick read. I'll find it for you. eventually.

I don't think you're understanding what I'm saying. It doesn't matter what the Texas Constitution says in regards to this discussion. It's completely irrelevant. Anything it says is a curiosity at best. The US Constitution is the only thing that matters as far as felons owning guns.

I read every instance that the word felon was used. It wasn't there. Are you sure it was the Texas Constitution and not an old law?

 

[Tex62]

I would think that your last statement would mean that only one (1) felony was committed
and only certain felonies. Murder, rape, etc,etc,etc. should NOT be given any firearms

The point being if they are too dangerous to own firearms, what are they doing on the street?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[DoubleDuty]

It's just interesting that generally the two rights are not defended with the same passion.

A person may claim that all gun laws are unconstitutional in defense of 2A but be fine with the various laws restricting the 1st Amendment.

Not me all our God given rights are too protect us from our corrupt government and we suck at preventing it from happening.

 

[ZX9RCAM]

Someone will have to lend he/her one. In theory. Or buy one for them.

A nice friend to leave one of their guns at their felon buddies house.

Couldn't buy it for the felon, that would show ownership, wouldn't it.

 

[robertc1024]

I don't know about y'all, but I know several felons. Did stupid things that they are well past. I'd like them to be toting guns. I guess the question I have is the egregiousness - and that's a hard thing. Kiddie diddlers - they can go straight to hell. There are so many other ways to commit a felony.

 

[Big Dipper]

I don't know about y'all, but I know several felons. Did stupid things that they are well past. I'd like them to be toting guns. I guess the question I have is the egregiousness - and that's a hard thing. Kiddie diddlers - they can go straight to hell. There are so many other ways to commit a felony.

Yeah, like carrying in a gun free school zone in a state that you aren’t licensed in. Federal felony!

 

[robertc1024]

Yeah, like carrying in a gun free school zone in a state that you aren’t licensed in. Federal felony!

I'd say that was something I have never, ever done to the best of my recollection. I watched the Watergate hearings as a kid.

 

[easy rider]

Yes, our Founding Fathers made it quite clear that it's OK to restrict God-given rights. If we don't like that fact, we can change our Constitution.

Well, I don't know about that, but there is this taken from the Journal of the American Revolution:

In stating that peoples rights were given to them by their creator, the Continental Congress endowed those rights with a legitimacy that knows no parallel in mortal sources. What God has given to man is not enjoyed at the sufferance of any monarch or government.

Yes, but this is not a Constitutional question. Also, every human walking the Earth has their rights restricted, as we know that no right is unlimited. You have freedom of speech, but you cannot yell "Fire" in a crowded building, etc, etc.

You certainly can yell fire in a crowded building (especially if there is a fire), but you are responsible for your actions, which may get you arrested. It's a common trope misconstrued.

 

[DocBeech]

Just to help you with your decision making on this one. Here is a list of federal laws that could (if they wanted to) take away your guns.

1) Transporting dentures across state lines (18 USC 1821)
2) Using Smokey Bear without permission (18 USC 711)
3) Providing a pirate with provisions (18 USC 1657)
4) Climbing a tree at the Supreme Court (40 USC 6133)
5) Writing a $1 Check (18 USC 336)
6) Injuring a government owned lamp (40 USC 81-3(b)(4)
7) Roller skating in an undesignated area of a national park (36 CRF 2.20)
8) Mislabeling a Turkey as a Ham (9 CFR 381.171 d)
9) Issuing a false weather report (18 USC 2074)
10) Knowingly let pigs, cattle, horses and other livestock enter a fenced-in area on public land (18 USC 1857)
11) Displaying the 4-H emblem, sign, insignia, or words if you are not an active 4-H member (18 USC 707)
12) Selling diced onions fried as onion rings without saying so (21 USC 333)
13) It is a federal crime to advertise wine in a manner that suggest it has intoxicating qualities. (27 USC 205, 207 and 27 CFR 4.64(a)(8).

Let that sink in before you judge too quickly.