Amish man challenges ID requirement for firearm purch.

[GURPS]

Today I wouldn't wish that on anyone, 1984 oh hell yea.

yeah not bad .....

 

[LibertyBeacon]

Ok, how about this: you may not legally publish anything that is dishonestly defamatory or that maliciously or damagingly misrepresents a person. Even though you have free speech, that act harms your fellow citizen in a dishonest fashion, and is justifiably illegal and therefore justifiably a limitation on your right to free speech.

You certainly *may* "legally publish anything that is dishonestly defamatory or that maliciously or damagingly misrepresents a person." There is absolutely nothing the government can do to stop you from doing so, unless there are some very specific avenues of enforcement I don't know about.

The law does, however, have some provisions for the aggrieved to collect damages in case these things published are lies or dishonest, etc. This seems quite a bit different than what we are discussing about ID requirements for firearm purchases as it applies to Mr. Hertzler's case here. I hope you're able to carry through my logic and see where I'm going with this.

 

[This_person]

You certainly *may* "legally publish anything that is dishonestly defamatory or that maliciously or damagingly misrepresents a person." There is absolutely nothing the government can do to stop you from doing so, unless there are some very specific avenues of enforcement I don't know about.

The law does, however, have some provisions for the aggrieved to collect damages in case these things published are lies or dishonest, etc. This seems quite a bit different than what we are discussing about ID requirements for firearm purchases as it applies to Mr. Hertzler's case here. I hope you're able to carry through my logic and see where I'm going with this.

The damages one legally obtains is the government legally restricting the right of free speech.

It is certainly different, but people wanted to talk about the larger concept of restrictions on rights.

In the case in point there are seemingly-conflicting rights. There's the right to exercise one's religion and the right to keep and bear arms that are allegedly in conflict. The question is whether exercising one right may legally cause another right to be restricted.

In my view the general requirement to have identification to purchase a weapon is reasonable, and therefore the government should find an alternative to the photo portion of the identification.

 

[LibertyBeacon]

In my view the general requirement to have identification to purchase a weapon is reasonable, and therefore the government should find an alternative to the photo portion of the identification.

That's all fine and well -- but that's not what I'm really interested in sussing out.

You statement suggested that there are many (if not all) rights which are restricted by the government in the same way that gun ownership is. Both examples you provided haven't been good ones. Do you have another example?

 

[This_person]

That's all fine and well -- but that's not what I'm really interested in sussing out.

You statement suggested that there are many (if not all) rights which are restricted by the government in the same way that gun ownership is. Both examples you provided haven't been good ones. Do you have another example?

Overall I have given like 12 examples of rights that seem universal but are not and you seem to dismiss all of them. Other than not quartering soldiers, what universal right do you see as entirely unrestricted?