Don’t restrict free speech. Restrict the right to carry guns at potentially explosive public events – Los Angeles Times

Russian playwright Anton Chekhov noted that, as a dramatic device, a gun introduced in the first act of a play must be fired in the second, otherwise it has no reason to be there. Lets hope thats not as true in life as it is in art, now that we have an armed racist right squaring off against leftist counter-protesters in public confrontations.

Weve already seen violence, even death, at these rallies. But the potential is for much worse if participants continue to carry guns into such provocative situations. The question is how to minimize the risk without trampling peoples constitutional rights.

The 1st Amendment to the Constitution establishes the right to free speech and peaceful assembly. The 2nd Amendment creates a right to own firearms. Neither is absolute. Nevertheless, firearms have become a significant presence in our culture, and only a dozen states prohibit people from carrying them openly in public. Whats more, over 40 states have NRA-backed preemption laws, which to varying degrees limit the ability of local governments to adopt stricter gun regulations than the state as a whole.

Virginia is a preemption state that also allows open carry, and the nation saw the results at Charlottesville, where paramilitary militias men heavily armed with military-style weapons and in some cases battle gear appeared as part of the Unite the Right rally. But far-left groups, including the so-called Redneck Revolt, a liberal pro-gun group, have also paraded around with their firearms at various demonstrations.

Now, another provocative rally aimed at promoting the true Confederate heritage is planned for Sept. 23 in Austin, Texas. Billing it as a Dixie Freedom Rally, its organizers, the Texas Confederate Militia, are telling prospective attendees that state law will allow them to bring openly carried and concealed handguns, as well as long rifles. Given the mix of firearms, passions and politics, its not hard to see the potential for violence.

This is a problem that the nation must resolve. A group of self-organized, trained and heavily armed men (and these groups are predominantly male) is a paramilitary organization, and giving it megaphones and parade banners doesnt magically transform it into something peaceful. Adding open carry to a contentious event can put public safety at risk, and the presence of visible firearms creates unique problems for the police.

Open carry can also be an act of intimidation. Heres one illustration: During the Unite the Right event, gun-toting and swastika-carrying Nazis chanting anti-Semitic slogans marched past a Charlottesville synagogue containing 40 worshippers, leaving them so frightened that they felt compelled to sneak out the back. And heres another: In April 2016, opposing protesters at a Dallas-area Nation of Islam mosque engaged in a tense face-off that, fortunately, ended without those Chekhovian firearms being used. This is not the America we want.

Another complicating factor: Two dozen states, including Texas, have adopted stand your ground laws similar to the one that became an issue in Florida after George Zimmerman shot of wrongdoing after shooting dead 17-year-old Trayvon Martin during a confrontation. The details differ among the states, but at their core the laws allow people to shoot to kill if they perceive they are under physical threat.

Incendiary political speech, demonstrators, open-carry and stand-your-ground laws what could possibly go wrong here?

This is madness. Police train to control unruly crowds, and develop strategies for separating rival groups of protesters, but are they equipped and able to keep the peace when the protesters have become paramilitary militias? If states such as Virginia and Texas insist on allowing citizens to brazenly strut around their streets with guns slung over their shoulders like Third World mercenaries, they must at least make an exception at rallies and demonstrations. A ban on weapons from firearms to pointed sticks, concealed or carried openly should be a condition for obtaining a permit.

Boston took the right approach this weekend at a controversial Free Speech rally that drew 40,000 protesters: Anything that could be used as a weapon, from guns to sharp sticks, was prohibited.

Fearing violence, some lawmakers and advocates have urged officials not to give permits, period, for these contentious rallies. But thats the wrong answer. Its not the right to speech and assembly that should be restricted; its the right to carry guns in certain potentially explosive situations. Gun advocates like to argue they have the right to bear arms as a bulwark against tyrannical government, but government has a responsibility here as well: to keep people safe.

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion or Facebook

Visit link:

Don’t restrict free speech. Restrict the right to carry guns at potentially explosive public events – Los Angeles Times

Related Post

August 23, 2017   Posted in: Trayvon Martin |

Fair Use Disclaimer

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Under the 'fair use' rule of copyright law, an author may make limited use of another author's work without asking permission. Fair use is based on the belief that the public is entitled to freely use portions of copyrighted materials for purposes of commentary and criticism. The fair use privilege is perhaps the most significant limitation on a copyright owner's exclusive rights.

Fair use as described at 17 U.S.C. Section 107:

"Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phono-records or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

  • (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for or nonprofit educational purposes,
  • (2) the nature of the copyrighted work,
  • (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole, and
  • (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."