>Re #119, It would be illegal to carry in that case. None of our rights is an absolute right. Freedom of speech is limited, and the Supreme court has ruled that the there are limits to the 2nd Amendment.
So then you do not have the absolute right to print whatever you want, because it could be libel? Incorrect! You DO have that right, regardless of what some court says that the law says. [The same goes for slander and “hate speech.”] Though this does not mean that you should not be free from the consequences of exercising that right for such ill-willed purposes.
“Precedent” is little more than the judicial equivalent of the children’s game “telephone.” The thing that makes the game a game is that it is a practical observation of the nature of both our language and our own nature to be imperfect carriers of some message... the game’s fun comes from observing the distortions of the message as it continues to degrade during the loop... this is the same thing that makes precedent so evil, it lifts above the law what people have said about the law.
I will now turn your own argument back upon you:
The supreme court has ruled, in Good News Club v. Milford Central School, that when a government operates a “limited public forum,” it may not discriminate against speech that takes place within that forum on the basis of the viewpoint it expresses. Yet there are numerous federally-funded universities which, as we speak, restrict free-speech (based on its viewpoint) by their school policies. {It’s so common that some Universities, like mine, have “free-speech zones” which relax those restrictions in certain geographical places.} (If a university being funded by the government is NOT a “limited public forum,” then what is it?)
Furthermore, it is federal law that “two or more persons conspir[ing] to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, [...] in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same;” is punishable (in certain qualified circumstances) by death... that is: it is potentially a CAPITAL CRIME for some group of people to get together and plan to oppress a “right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution!” even if that group is the Supreme Court of the United States of America. {SEE: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000241——000-.html }
Remember it is the judiciary’s job to “faithfully execute the law” not to change its meaning.
>In their last ruling, they upheld the ban on carrying a firearm in court buildings and at schools.
See the above; I would love to have seen the Supreme Court brought up on those charges for Keelo v. New London wherein they completely gutted both the “for public use” and the “just compensation” clauses of the 5th Amendment.
ALL schools & courthouses, or just Federal schools & courthouses? There is a difference.
Furthermore, my courthouse example was SPECIFICALLY restricted to the state, its counties, and its Constitution: that the Federal Government says that it’s possible for some restriction to be placed on something does NOT invalidate the state’s own Constitution’s prohibition from restricting it? (Or can you give me a reason why it does or should?)
>Thus even though your state Constitution says otherwise, the Supremes have already granted power to localities to set those specific standards.
So, by this argument the Supreme Court could invalidate any state government, law, or regulation regardless of whether or not the issue at hand is under the federal court’s purview? That’s a friggen scary thought man.
My State Constitution also has this in it:
Art II, Sec. 11. [Freedom of religion.]
Every man shall be free to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and no person shall ever be molested or denied any civil or political right or privilege on account of his religious opinion or mode of religious worship. No person shall be required to attend any place of worship or support any religious sect or denomination; nor shall any preference be given by law to any religious denomination or mode of worship.
Under your theory the Supreme Court could invalidate this because “some religiously-motivated political speech is deemed to be hurtful, harmful, and hateful and thus may be restricted” and then my State could pass a law banning the ability to vote [Citizen’s right of suffrage] from any person who publicly declared that abortion is murder! {Regardless of the State’s own Constitution prohibiting any such law.}
>Note that they did not uphold the ban for cities, only for those specific exceptions.
Please read the above.