9 ms·
> A court should not uphold a highly problematic interpretation of a statute merely because the Government promises to use it responsibly. This. Whether a law
by dkbrk 11y ago
> A court should not uphold a highly problematic interpretation of a statute merely because the Government promises to use it responsibly.
This. Whether a law is just needs to be considered in light of its worst-case abuse potential, not just on the basis of how it is currently being applied. It is a great advantage of the common law system that over-broad, ill-specified or otherwise broken laws can be remedied through precedent, however the responsibility still lies with the government to make laws that are well-considered, based on sound principles and not overly broad.
- purpled_haze 11y agoCould you extrapolate from that though that: 1. Since the first amendment allows the free exercise of religion, prayer must be allowed in schools as long as no specific religion is established via those prayers? 2. Since the second amendment allows the right to keep and bear arms, without further amendment, that right should be unrestricted by any registration process considered onerous or restrictive?
- Retra 11y agoThe first amendment doesn't really "allow" anything; it is a prohibition of certain actions by congress.
- dragonwriter 11y ago> Since the first amendment allows the free exercise of religion, prayer must be allowed in schools as long as no specific religion is established via those prayers? Prayer is allowed in schools, government-officer-led prayer is not allowed in public schools.
- Deregibus 11y agoNo, I don't think you can extrapolate that, those seem like entirely unrelated issues. Neither of those points imply an overly broad law that only works based on the trust and restraint of the government.
- ams6110 11y agoThe government often claims that they will not use gun registration records to seize guns. So far they have not. But they have the information, and they could try to do it, so it is a matter of trusting the government.
- hga 11y agothe government often claims that they will not use gun registration records to seize guns. So far they have not. Not true in California and I think New York state. Threatened in D.C., and I'm no doubt missing more than a few examples. Needless to say, the majority of US gun owners are opposed to registration (to the point that such a requirement nationwide would light a slow match to a hot civil war; as it is, the post-Sandy Hook registration laws in Connecticut and New York state have been mostly ignored, in these Bluest of states), especially since there are no significant benefits to such schemes. Plenty of us know our 20th Century history as well and the retail and wholesale democide that registration led to abroad.
- dragonwriter 11y ago> The government often claims that they will not use gun registration records to seize guns. So far they have not. But they have the information, and they could try to do it, so it is a matter of trusting the government. No, its a matter of seizing the guns itself being prohibited by the Constitution. This is not analogous to the case at issue, where the Court would rely on the governments promise not to do what the interpretation of the law the government asks to be upheld would be allowed, instead, what is proposed with regard to the 2nd Amendment is trusting the government not to do something that would be easier with information it has as a result of the interpretation of the law it advocates, but which would still be prohibited by that interpretation. While there may be a problem with that, its not the same type of problem, and bringing it up is mostly inviting a derailment of the thread rather than adding anything to the discussion of the issue at hand in the article.
- Dylan16807 11y agoThat really has nothing to do with the constitutional status of guns, though. You could say the same about registering cars, and the government coming around to seize all cars.
- Dylan16807 11y ago1. There's still the problem that the religious choice of some children is not to pray. You'd be choosing some over others. Schools can and do have a "moment of silence" where students can pray or not, without pressure. 2. Edit: Oh I misread slightly. I agree that registration systems should not be extreme to the point that they impede ownership if they want to be constitutional.
- iamsohungry 11y agoThe bill of rights is a set of meta-laws and as such is separated from the problems that laws solve by a level of indirection, and as such they have to be more abstract and general to cover all laws that could be made. I don't think it makes sense to talk about the bill of rights and laws as being the same.
- pavel_lishin 11y agoPrayer is allowed in school. It's coercing others to partake in your religious rituals, as an authority figure working for the government, that's forbidden. (e.g., as a student I can gather other students and pray during lunch, but as a teacher I can't force my students to pray.)
- samman 11y ago2a. "...well-regulated..."
- lackbeard 11y agoAt the time when it was written, "well-regulated" did not mean lots of oversight by the government. It meant something closer to "properly functioning". I.e.: armed and trained sufficiently.
- JoeAltmaier 11y agoThe militia is well-regulated; the right to bear arms is unrestricted.
- samman 11y agoFair point about the separate clauses-- but what's the intent of the "well-regulated" part, then?
- rhino369 11y agoTo say that the country needed well managed militias to protect the country. Remember, the first several battles of the revolution were local Massachusetts militias defending their local weapons caches and supplies.
- samman 11y agoI see how that was critical to the nation at the time, but then how is that amendment relevant in the modern world? Standing armed forces protect our national integrity, and state/county/municipal agencies maintain local order. Aren't local militias effectively obsolete?