Non-financial boards have been closed but will continue to be accessible in read-only form. If you're disappointed, we understand. Thank you for being an active participant in this community. We have more community features in development that we look forward to sharing soon.
Restrictions that protect health and/or safety do not equal loss of my right to smoke or shoot?That's the issue that's coming up in NYS Rifle & Pistol v. Corlett:https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/new-york-state-r...New York has de facto forbidden most people in most circumstances from being able to carry guns outside their homes. Challengers claim this violates the Second Amendment. Advocates of New York's law would characterize its effect the way you have. That the "right" to shoot, like the "right" to smoke, can be effectively exercised entirely in one's own home - so therefore, there is no infringement if it is limited to that location.Critics of the law argue that the "right" to shoot is more like the "rights" associated with free speech - that they require being able to exercise them in contexts outside the home in order for them to be effective. Your local government cannot prohibit you from wearing most messages on your T-shirt, because you have a right to free expression - but that right is vitiated even if they let you wear those T-shirts in your home, because a core element of free expression requires you to have some ability to do it in public, not just in private. Similarly, they argue, because there are threats to your person that exist not just in your home but in public as well, the right to "bear" arms cannot be understood to be protected if those arms can only be borne in your home.Albaby
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |