Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Schumer’s False Fire - His analogy is a dreadful one.
National Review Online ^ | January 31, 2013 | Charles C. W. Cooke

Posted on 01/31/2013 12:22:30 PM PST by neverdem

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-29 next last
This fire-in-a-theater jazz is a favorite of the less historically literate among America’s false-compromisers, most of whom know neither that the phrase was a (defective) analogy and not a legal doctrine, nor that the case from which it comes was subsequently overturned with some prejudice.

What was that case? Does anyone know?

1 posted on 01/31/2013 12:22:40 PM PST by neverdem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: neverdem

If a madman is firing into a crowded theater; is it better to have a weapon to defend yourself, or to just cry afterward?


2 posted on 01/31/2013 12:33:55 PM PST by USFRIENDINVICTORIA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

The difference between shouting fire in a crowded theater and assault weapons is that they only punish the person who shouted, not everyone else.


3 posted on 01/31/2013 12:36:00 PM PST by Brooklyn Attitude (Obama being re-elected is the political equivalent of OJ being found not guilty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

you can yell ‘fire’ wherever and whenever you want if you’re nuts or an a-hole.

never seen a law that could stop it, just ones that could punish it.


4 posted on 01/31/2013 12:48:14 PM PST by TurboZamboni (Looting the future to bribe the present)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Hahaha, causing a panic in a crowded location is now equal to owning a firearm.


5 posted on 01/31/2013 12:49:03 PM PST by andyk (I have sworn...eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Lets see Chuckie. Do you punish the person who yells fire or do we tape the mouths of everyone entering the theater.

Think about it.


6 posted on 01/31/2013 12:54:07 PM PST by joshua c (Please dont feed the liberals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
FIne. If it's against the law to shout fire in a movie theater, then make it illegal to fire a gun in a movie theater. Analogy resolved.

I will actually promote this new gun law, Chucky. I'm sure that most people would support a law banning the shooting of guns in a crowded theater. What say you, Chuckster?

7 posted on 01/31/2013 12:54:31 PM PST by Sirius Lee (All that is required for evil to advance is for government to do "something")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
That was a very educational (to me, anyway) little opinion piece. Some history I was not aware of.

He should have specifically named the case though.

8 posted on 01/31/2013 12:56:31 PM PST by dead (I've got my eye out for Mullah Omar.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: andyk

Ted Cruz uses pistol grip to rebut call for assault weapon ban

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2983924/posts

Feinstein and Schumer saw the picture Cruz brought and trampled staffers while they were running in terror.


9 posted on 01/31/2013 12:57:33 PM PST by TurboZamboni (Looting the future to bribe the present)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: dead

Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47, 49-51 (1917)


10 posted on 01/31/2013 1:01:17 PM PST by gusty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
“While the First Amendment protects freedom of speech, no one has a right to falsely shout ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theater. . . . Likewise, the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms also comes with limits.” Thus, Schumer told the Senate hearing, we can ban “assault weapons” with little trouble."

Too bad chucky but NO YOU CAN NOT.



If the Founding Fathers meant for there to be laws restricting an American Citizen of their right to freely and without restraint posses arms they would have clearly written it into the text of the Amendment just like they did in these...

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law

Amendment III
but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment XII
no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny

And these...

AMENDMENT XIII
AMENDMENT XIV
AMENDMENT XV
AMENDMENT XVI
AMENDMENT XVIII
AMENDMENT XIX
AMENDMENT XXIII
AMENDMENT XXVI


The Second Amendment is absolutely clear here.

It is:

"shall not be infringed"

Not "according to the rules of the common law"
Not "but in a manner to be prescribed by law"
Not "but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation"
Not "without due process of law"
Not "Congress shall have power to enforce this"
Not "The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation"
Not "unless they shall by law"
Not "Congress may by law"
Not "and shall not prevent
Not "No law"


Yeah, the Founding Fathers had every single opportunity for YEARS to put such a stipulation in the Second Amendment.

What do we see there?

Do we see the stipulations that are in many of the other Amendments?

No.

The "Bill of Rights" took seven months to write. This was in addition to the eleven years for the Constitution. The Constitutional Convention was 116 days long. The Bill of Rights was not ratified until 1791.

There was plenty of time to create stipulations for the Second Amendment that would allow certain encroachments based upon existing or future law or laws. Such stipulations exist throughout the Constitution and it's Amendments, including the first ten.

The Second Amendment contains only one stipulation. "Shall not be infringed."

My conclusion is they damn well meant exactly not in the slightest scintilla. They were experts in what happens when such concessions are allowed. It is the absolute definition of "slippery slope."

Such concessions are the exact cause of being tangled in the 20,000 infringements spider web of laws, rules, ordinances and policies of today.

.br

11 posted on 01/31/2013 1:02:16 PM PST by TLI ( ITINERIS IMPENDEO VALHALLA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Banning certain rifles is analogous to cutting out the tongues of theater-goes in advance.

The analogy to “shouting fire” is the criminal misuse of guns, which is already illegal.


12 posted on 01/31/2013 1:11:27 PM PST by Atlas Sneezed (Hold My Beer and Watch This!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gusty

Gracias!


13 posted on 01/31/2013 1:12:42 PM PST by dead (I've got my eye out for Mullah Omar.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Chuck U, Shumer!


14 posted on 01/31/2013 1:13:38 PM PST by Alas Babylon!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Then REPRESENTATIVE Schumer was a great cheerleader for ATF after the Waco disaster.


15 posted on 01/31/2013 1:45:25 PM PST by Fido969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: joshua c
Lets see Chuckie. Do you punish the person who yells fire or do we tape the mouths of everyone entering the theater.

If Schmuckey answered that question honestly you'd have tape on your mouth right now. Or your keyboard as the case may be.

16 posted on 01/31/2013 1:53:08 PM PST by TigersEye (The irresponsible should not be leading the responsible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: TLI

Excellent post. I’m going to copy it and pass that on to others.

Thanks


17 posted on 01/31/2013 2:00:59 PM PST by paint_your_wagon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: TurboZamboni
"never seen a law that could stop it, just ones that could punish it."

Sort of agree. As I wrote in another thread:

This spurious argument has always irritated me -- it is just plain stupid.

There is not prior restraint in the 1st -- you may yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

You are not, however, immune from the consequences if there is not a fire.

18 posted on 01/31/2013 2:10:27 PM PST by Peet (TurboTax: "So simple even a Secretary of the Treasury can use it!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: gusty; dead; Beelzebubba
gusty; thanks for the correct spelling of Schenck v. United States, which SCOTUS reversed in Brandenburg v. Ohio. I had that source, http://www.law.cornell.edu/, on my old comuter. Thanks for prompting me to retrieve it.
19 posted on 01/31/2013 2:10:48 PM PST by neverdem ( Xin loi min oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: TLI

Thank you!


20 posted on 01/31/2013 2:13:37 PM PST by neverdem ( Xin loi min oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-29 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson