Guns and abortion
11 Responses to “Guns and abortion”
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
August 5th, 2014 at 2:00 pm
It would be analogous if young kids could get guns under the Second Amendment now. Ensuring basic medical care for abortions is not an infringement on the right to abortion.
Abortions are marketed to uneducated minors. The law is intended to protect vulnerable pregnant women, by ensuring that when something goes wrong during the surgery, that they won’t be left to bleed out and die. They won’t be sent home with an infection that turns septic and kills them.
Any other surgery, a minor can’t give legal consent for the procedure. There is no logical or legal reason why abortion is special.
If I sold a gun that fired accidentally 1% of the time, without the trigger or hammer being touched, I would be criminally negligent. More than 1% of abortion recipients have serious problems that need hospital care.
August 5th, 2014 at 2:00 pm
the right to snuff out inconvenient life == the right to defend life
I’m not seeing it.
August 5th, 2014 at 2:06 pm
In the judge’s mind, the lack of qualified doctors wanting to perform abortions equals a civil rights violation. Therefore, reasonable protections must be struck down.
Instead of guns, a better analogy is the primaries. Nobody opposed the incumbents for the majority of seats (including the Senate, House of Representatives, Mayor, and some city council seats). The parallel would be for a judge to strike down filing and residency requirements for candidates until the primary ballots were filled.
August 5th, 2014 at 6:17 pm
Sure, judge, whatever. Wanna bet the emanating penumbras of the expressly enumerated right aren’t nearly as substantial as the emanating penumbras from the one the judiciary pretty much made up out of whole cloth in 1973?
I am a lawyer, and it is my professional opinion that law is a sick joke.
August 6th, 2014 at 9:20 am
The judge is entirely correct. If a state passed a law that said no one could sell guns or ammo unless they were certified to teach at the local law enforcement range, thereby shutting down the majority of gun stores in the state, that would be an unconstitutional infringement of the 2ndA.
The fact that one may not agree with abortion does not mean that it is not held to be a constitutionally protected right. As such, upholding regulation aimed at shutting down providers would set the precedent that similar regulation restricting gun stores would be acceptable.
August 6th, 2014 at 10:06 am
As the 2nd Amendment was a meaningless phrase for over 200 years I think gun rights are as much a SCOTUS “made up” right as the right to abortion. A SCOTUS consistent of six Scalia will make abortion rights go away, six Ginsburg will make NY’s gun laws look reasonable. All without a single change to the constitution.
Like it or not, as our politicians don’t want to touch any hot topics, courts are the ultimate politic makers in the country.
August 6th, 2014 at 5:06 pm
The Second Amendment was a meaningless Amendment until the Gun Control Acts of 1934 and 1936 were passed by legislators who should have known better (One uses the same tools and techniques for interpreting the First Amendment as one does the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendments But the Second and the Ninth and Tenth? Unique and restrictive!). The Third Amendment is still a meaningless Amendment unless and until the defense budget gets tighter and civil unrest spreads, and what then?
August 6th, 2014 at 5:07 pm
Mu, sadly I have to agree with your second, third and fourth sentences.
August 7th, 2014 at 3:28 pm
@ BenEzra, medical practice is not a constitutionally protected activity, as the rights mentioned in the First and Second Amendments.
State laws require hosptitals to screen donated blood for diseases prior to giving the blood to dying patients. That’s not a violation of the rights of HIV-patients to donate blood, because HIV patients don’t have a right to donate blood.
Doctors don’t have a right to practice medicine without hospital admitting privileges.
A better analogy would be If a state passed a law that said no one could sell guns unless they are capable of reading the buyer’s ID and paperwork. That would be straight discrimination against the blind, and it would be constitutional.
August 7th, 2014 at 3:41 pm
@dustydog, SCOTUS has ruled that the right to abortion comes from the right to privacy under the 4th Amendment, not from a right to practice medicine under the 10th, and as such is exactly comparable to the 2ndA from the standpoint of the courts.
As such, if a court holds that it is permissible to restrict the exercise of a constitutionally protected right (in this case, abortion) by setting up requirements that set an immensely high barrier to exercising it, then that precedent applies to *all* rights, not just the ones one agrees with. So a state could just as easily say that no one can sell guns or ammo unless they are licensed to instruct at the local LEO range, as they can say that no one can perform an abortion unless they are licensed to admit at the local hospital. In both cases, the underlying intent is obviously to inhibit the exercise of the right in question, and there is a lot of court precedent regarding that.
August 8th, 2014 at 12:11 am
Buying an abortion kills a human being. Buying a gun does not.