Sen. Susan Collins Proposes Bill to Control Gun Sales

[ABX]

Sen. Susan Collins of Maine is working on a piece of gun control legislation she hopes will appeal to both Democrats and Republicans in the wake of the Orlando terror attack.

According to The New York Times, Collins, a moderate Republican, is "trying to avoid" a repeat of what took place last December — a gun control measure that fell flat because of partisan politics.

Breaking News at Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/susan-collins-bill-stop-gun/2016/06/17/id/734470/#ixzz4C2lo3pS9

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Wonder what part of the Constitution that says 'shall not be infringed' she does not understand.

Only an amendment concurred to by the states, not some law passed by Congress, can overcome the 2nd Amendment.  It is a right, not legislation to be changed at the whims of Congress.

[WAC]

 Lets put a face to that name......The Demorats always put her out there to take the heat......you can bet she's not putting it together.....

[Oceander]

Wonder what part of the Constitution that says 'shall not be infringed' she does not understand.

Only an amendment concurred to by the states, not some law passed by Congress, can overcome the 2nd Amendment.  It is a right, not legislation to be changed at the whims of Congress.

Then why is it a crime to cry "fire" in a crowded theater?

[flowers]

Collins, your leader....obama and his FBI had no trouble with Omar getting weapons, so exactly how would your new law have stopped him?  Collins should have joined the dem party decades ago.

[Oceander]

Collins, your leader....obama and his FBI had no trouble with Omar getting weapons, so exactly how would your new law have stopped him?  Collins should have joined the dem party decades ago.

Why would you complain?   Her proposal is simply implementing what Trump said should be the law.  She and Trump are on the same page.

[sitetest]

How is this not WORSE than what was rejected in December?

[andy58-in-nh]

Wonder what part of the Constitution that says 'shall not be infringed' she does not understand.

Only an amendment concurred to by the states, not some law passed by Congress, can overcome the 2nd Amendment.  It is a right, not legislation to be changed at the whims of Congress.

She also does not appear to understand either the Fourth Amendment or the Fourteen Amendment (Section 1).

Liberal idiots also come in the GOP flavor.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Then why is it a crime to cry "fire" in a crowded theater?

Please explain what that has to do with the second amendment and this thread about gun control.

[sinkspur]

Please explain what that has to do with the second amendment and this thread about gun control.

Regulations on guns have always been permitted by the 2nd Amendment. Guns cannot be banned, according to Heller, but they can be regulated.

[TomSea]

Please explain what that has to do with the second amendment and this thread about gun control.

I guess it is saying that even our rights have limits, we have the right to free speech but not to shout "fire" in a crowded theater.

We have a right to bear arms but maybe not all arms such as a bazooka.

[sinkspur]

For the record, Collins' bill will not pass either.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

I guess it is saying that even our rights have limits, we have the right to free speech but not to shout "fire" in a crowded theater.

We have a right to bear arms but maybe not all arms such as a bazooka.

If that is the case, then neither are a true 'right', are they?

A 'right' is something that cannot be taken away.  That is the reason the English language calls it a 'right'.

[bob434]

Then why is it a crime to cry "fire" in a crowded theater?

It's not against the law:

[[It's Time to Stop Using the 'Fire in a Crowded Theater' Quote

Ninety-three years ago, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote what is perhaps the most well-known -- yet misquoted and misused -- phrase in Supreme Court history: "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic."

Without fail, whenever a free speech controversy hits, someone will cite this phrase as proof of limits on the First Amendment. And whatever that controversy may be, "the law"--as some have curiously called it--can be interpreted to suggest that we should err on the side of censorship. Holmes' quote has become a crutch for every censor in America, yet the quote is wildly misunderstood.

But those who quote Holmes might want to actually read the case where the phrase originated before using it as their main defense. If they did, they'd realize it was never binding law, and the underlying case, U.S. v. Schenck, is not only one of the most odious free speech decisions in the Court's history, but was overturned over 40 years ago.]]

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time-to-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/

[bob434]

I guess it is saying that even our rights have limits, we have the right to free speech but not to shout "fire" in a crowded theater.

We have a right to bear arms but maybe not all arms such as a bazooka.

You actually are allowed to own 'weapons of war' but there are some restrictions and yes you can yell fire in a crowded room- see my previous post

[sinkspur]

If a court can prove that you incite imminent lawlessness by falsely shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, it can convict you. If you incite an unlawful riot, your speech is "brigaded" with illegal action, and you will have broken the law. But merely falsely shouting "fire" does not break the law, even if it risks others’ safety.

[geronl]

Regulations on guns have always been permitted by the 2nd Amendment. Guns cannot be banned, according to Heller, but they can be regulated.

denying a person a constitution right because their name is on some arbitrary list is not "regulating" it is banning.

[sinkspur]

denying a person a constitution right because their name is on some arbitrary list is not "regulating" it is banning.

One cannot be denied a right without due process. Felons are not allowed to own guns in Texas, but they are given due process before being declared felons.

And you're right about the list, which is why none of these bills will pass.

[bob434]

If a court can prove that you incite imminent lawlessness by falsely shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, it can convict you. If you incite an unlawful riot, your speech is "brigaded" with illegal action, and you will have broken the law. But merely falsely shouting "fire" does not break the law, even if it risks others’ safety.

[[Though the image often represents illegal speech, "shouting fire in a crowded theater" refers to an outdated legal standard. At one point, the law criminalized such speech, which created a "clear and present danger." But since 1969, for speech to break the law, it can’t merely lead others to dangerous situations. It must directly encourage others to commit specific criminal actions of their own.]]

http://civil-liberties.yoexpert.com/civil-liberties-general/is-it-legal-to-shout-%22fire%22-in-a-crowded-theater-19421.html

However, a KKK member who 'incited violence' by his rhettoric, was deemed within his rights by he supreme court awhile back- so apparently even inciting others to violence isn't a crime any longer- (you'll find a short blurb about his case in that same link)