Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 14

Thread: Pro-gun author fired for opinion of constitutional rights.

  1. #1

    Default Pro-gun author fired for opinion of constitutional rights.

    I found this story this morning in the Toronto Star. A pro-gun journalist who writes a column for Guns & Ammo magazine was fired after writing an article titled 'Let's Talk Limits.'

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/05/bu...=business&_r=0

    In the article he states his belief that 'constitutional rights are regulated' and summed it up stating that a requirement of sixteen hours of training to qualify for a concealed weapon carry license was not an infringement of constitutional rights.

    Speaking as someone who is a supporter of strong gun control, I find it unfortunate that the magazine won't allow a moderate opinion that simply proposes reasonable precautions around ownership of weapons.

    Is this an infringement of free speech or does the magazine have a right to terminate the employment of a person whose opinion differs from that of the employer?

    I'd also be really interested to hear from anyone who opposed Robertson being suspended from A&E's Duck Dynasty but would support the decision of Guns &Ammo to terminate Metcalf's employment.

  2. #2

    Default Pro-gun author fired for opinion of constitutional rights.



    Quote Originally Posted by starrunner View Post
    I found this story this morning in the Toronto Star. A pro-gun journalist who writes a column for Guns & Ammo magazine was fired after writing an article titled 'Let's Talk Limits.'

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/05/bu...=business&_r=0

    In the article he states his belief that 'constitutional rights are regulated' and summed it up stating that a requirement of sixteen hours of training to qualify for a concealed weapon carry license was not an infringement of constitutional rights.

    Speaking as someone who is a supporter of strong gun control, I find it unfortunate that the magazine won't allow a moderate opinion that simply proposes reasonable precautions around ownership of weapons.

    Is this an infringement of free speech or does the magazine have a right to terminate the employment of a person whose opinion differs from that of the employer?

    I'd also be really interested to hear from anyone who opposed Robertson being suspended from A&E's Duck Dynasty but would support the decision of Guns &Ammo to terminate Metcalf's employment.
    As far as I know, as a private business, Guns N Ammo could terminate whatever employee they please for so much as a miscalculated fart. He's paid to write pieces they deem to be in the best interests for their publication, nothing more.

    Edit - it must be an incredibly slow news day in Toronto for this to be considered 'news'.

  3. #3

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by Dan09 View Post
    As far as I know, as a private business, Guns N Ammo could terminate whatever employee they please for so much as a miscalculated fart. He's paid to write pieces they deem to be in the best interests for their publication, nothing more.

    Edit - it must be an incredibly slow news day in Toronto for this to be considered 'news'.
    Pretty much this. The magazine is not a government entity, so there's no impingement of 1st Amendment rights. Now, whether the magazine is trying to censor moderate views or should be engaging in such behavior is up for debate.

    What's funny is that the arch-conservative Antonin Scalia even supports reasonable regulation and restriction on 2nd Amendment rights. He is who wrote the Supreme Court decision in District of Columbia v Heller, which held that the 2nd Amendment is subject to reasonable regulation.



    Quote Originally Posted by District of Columbia v Heller
    There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was not unlimited, just as the First Amendment ’s right of free speech was not, see, e.g., United States v. Williams, 553 U. S. ___ (2008). Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose. Before turning to limitations upon the individual right, however, we must determine whether the prefatory clause of the Second Amendment comports with our interpretation of the operative clause.


    Quote Originally Posted by District of Columbia v Heller, emphasis added
    Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.26

  4. #4

    Default

    Guns and Ammo has every right to publish any article they deem appropriate and should be expected to only publish articles which maintain or increase their revenue. Right now, the Pro-Gun camp is spending millions to defend their legal right to exist and cannot afford mutiny within their camp. Anyone questioning the validity of their arguments will be swiftly booted out of their organizations. "Reasonable Precautions" hints that further restrictions are reasonable while most firearm owners firmly reject any further legal restrictions on their right to bare arms. Therefore, I would have expected Guns and Ammo fire the guy before publishing the article in question, but, instead, they chose to publish a controversial article in hopes of gaining readers and risked much more than they had planned.

    "Moderate voices" in the gun control debates started going away in 1994. As we have progressed since then, more moderates each year have decided that enough is enough and fortified their position on one side or the other. Most people do not care about politicians and their speeches until it starts to effect their own lives. "Reasonable Precautions" sounds good right up until a firearm owner hears his favorite firearm listed as unreasonable. Firearm registration sounds reasonable right up until legal owners get notices on their doors that they (New York City residents, December 2013) have a time limit to dispose of specific registered firearms. Those that thought a magazine capacity limit of 10 was not unreasonable are horrified to hear that is still too many. No one currently makes standard handgun magazines with 5 round capacity so everyone who was legally permitted to have a handgun cannot carry it anymore in those jurisdictions because they cannot get the required magazine. Progressives have moved gun control debates so far left that even the most moderate Pro-Gun individuals now find themselves to the far right side of the current debate. Good job progressives.

    What is "reasonable precautions" regarding gun control? Do you trust everyone eligible or selected few? Can you trust your citizens with 30 rounds? 20? 10? 5? None? Can everyone who successfuly completes a concealed carry permit application carry or should it be limited based upon merit? Can you make the application so difficult that only billionaires can complete it?

    My reasonable precautions is as follows: not a fellon or convicted violent person and not lawfully judged mentally unfit to posses firearms. Within a month after the Colorado movie theater shooting, a deranged gunman entered a San Antonio, Texas, movie theater on the wrong side of town, fired 4 rounds without killing anyone, and died when a patron exercised his right to bare arms. On the other side of town, the news coverage may have been better and the patron would have been more likely to have carried a fancier pistol, but the result would have been the same: rounds on target and threat eliminated before someone could dial 911. This same scenario could have happened in Oregon, Florida, Virginia, or even most cities in Colorado and it would not make the state news. On the other hand, every time a deranged gunman takes the opportunity to be the only one armed and shooting makes national news with cries for stricter gun control. We need more private shooting ranges for better gun control; every lawful firearm owner should be afforded the opportunity to practice controlling their gun and putting rounds on target.

  5. #5

    Default

    Just to clarify my thoughts on this:

    I guess the part that seems strange to me is the fact that it was the magazine itself that chose to publish Metcalf's article and then terminated his employment after receiving the complaints. They have no culpability in the matter?

    Also, I have contrasting feelings about this issue when I compare it to the famous duck dynasty debate. In that case, I felt that A&E had the right to fire Robertson, especially since I found his opinion offensive, (please keep in mind I was NOT active in the uproar over his comments, I do have better things to do). Unfortunately, I also feel that Guns &Ammo had a right to terminate Metcalf's employment, I just find it sad that they won't allow a moderate opinion supporting training before a license is issued to carry a concealed weapon. These were the reasonable precautions I was referring to in my first post.

  6. #6

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by starrunner View Post
    Just to clarify my thoughts on this:

    I guess the part that seems strange to me is the fact that the magazine itself that chose to publish Metcalf's article and then terminated his employment after receiving the complaints.

    Also, I have contrasting feelings about this issue when I compare it to the famous duck dynasty debate. I felt that A&E had a right to fire Robertson, especially since I found his opinion offensive, (please keep in mind I was NOT active in the uproar over his comments, I do have better things to do). Unfortunately, I also feel that Guns &Ammo had a right to terminate Metcalf's employment, I just find it sad that they won't allow a moderate opinion supporting training before a license is issued to carry a concealed weapon. These were the reasonable precautions I was referring to in my first post.
    A&E (another private company) was right to fire Robinson for voicing his opinion but Guns n Ammo is not, simply because you agree with the motivations of one but not the other?

    Wow.

  7. #7

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremiah View Post
    What is "reasonable precautions" regarding gun control?
    That is for the legislatures (elected by the people) and the courts to decide.



    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremiah View Post
    Can you make the application so difficult that only billionaires can complete it?
    No. That would be ruled unconstitutional. A regulation that effects a ban while posing as a regulation is still a ban and would be struck down. In the Heller case, the court held that the DC regulations requiring handguns either be disassembled or trigger-locked effectively banned operable handguns contrary to the 2nd Amendment.



    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremiah View Post
    "Moderate voices" in the gun control debates started going away in 1994. As we have progressed since then, more moderates each year have decided that enough is enough and fortified their position on one side or the other. Most people do not care about politicians and their speeches until it starts to effect their own lives. "Reasonable Precautions" sounds good right up until a firearm owner hears his favorite firearm listed as unreasonable. Firearm registration sounds reasonable right up until legal owners get notices on their doors that they (New York City residents, December 2013) have a time limit to dispose of specific registered firearms. Those that thought a magazine capacity limit of 10 was not unreasonable are horrified to hear that is still too many. No one currently makes standard handgun magazines with 5 round capacity so everyone who was legally permitted to have a handgun cannot carry it anymore in those jurisdictions because they cannot get the required magazine. Progressives have moved gun control debates so far left that even the most moderate Pro-Gun individuals now find themselves to the far right side of the current debate. Good job progressives.
    If the magazine capacity thing is truly such that all existing magazines are illegal and legal replacements do not exist, then that is absolutely actionable. Such a state would likely be ruled to be an unconstitutional impingement. Given your partisan rhetoric, though, I'm doubting that you've presented a fair view of the actual regulations.



    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremiah View Post
    My reasonable precautions is as follows: not a fellon or convicted violent person and not lawfully judged mentally unfit to posses firearms. Within a month after the Colorado movie theater shooting, a deranged gunman entered a San Antonio, Texas, movie theater on the wrong side of town, fired 4 rounds without killing anyone, and died when a patron exercised his right to bare arms. On the other side of town, the news coverage may have been better and the patron would have been more likely to have carried a fancier pistol, but the result would have been the same: rounds on target and threat eliminated before someone could dial 911. This same scenario could have happened in Oregon, Florida, Virginia, or even most cities in Colorado and it would not make the state news. On the other hand, every time a deranged gunman takes the opportunity to be the only one armed and shooting makes national news with cries for stricter gun control. We need more private shooting ranges for better gun control; every lawful firearm owner should be afforded the opportunity to practice controlling their gun and putting rounds on target.
    Oh god not this vigilante superhero nonsense. If that happened, then surely you can furnish a link to a contemporary and local news source that reported it. Such a shooting would have surely made the local newspaper or warranted 90 seconds on the evening newscast or at least been picked up by some locally-oriented news site. Yes, ordinary people can occasionally do extraordinary things. But, they're called extraordinary for a reason. While there's a chance that someone in the theater might have had military training or have been an incredibly steel-nerved dead-eye or just got off a lucky shot, the odds are that a whole bunch of other people would get shot and the wannabe-vigilante would get gunned down by police as another shooter.

    Beyond that, the little jurisprudence that does exist suggests that measures beyond your version of reasonable are legitimate and constitutional. United States v Miller (while apparently a particularly odd case in that Miller didn't file briefs or show up for court, leaving the Supreme Court with only the government's arguments to consider) held that weapons that were not relevant to the "preservation or efficacy" of a militia (the case focused on a sawed-off shotgun) were not constitutionally protected. Presser v Illinois held that the state's law against forming private militias or parading with arms in cities was valid, but that people did have the right to individually own arms and states had the right to impose restrictions.

  8. #8

    Default

    As an avid duck and deer hunter who was raised by an arms collector, I wish I could look on the "pro-gun" folks as anything but a bunch of out-of-touch tea party loons, but I can't. Fortunately, I think the winds of change are picking up. People in favor of sensible regulations are sick of being held hostage by a vocal but steadily shrinking minority. As with pot legalization and gay marriage, it's only a matter of time.

  9. #9

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremiah View Post
    Within a month after the Colorado movie theater shooting, a deranged gunman entered a San Antonio, Texas, movie theater on the wrong side of town, fired 4 rounds without killing anyone, and died when a patron exercised his right to bare arms. On the other side of town, the news coverage may have been better and the patron would have been more likely to have carried a fancier pistol, but the result would have been the same: rounds on target and threat eliminated before someone could dial 911. This same scenario could have happened in Oregon, Florida, Virginia, or even most cities in Colorado and it would not make the state news. On the other hand, every time a deranged gunman takes the opportunity to be the only one armed and shooting makes national news with cries for stricter gun control. We need more private shooting ranges for better gun control; every lawful firearm owner should be afforded the opportunity to practice controlling their gun and putting rounds on target.
    And now for the truth of the matter:

    Two wounded in theater shooting - San Antonio Express-News
    Breakup sparked theater shootout - San Antonio Express-News
    snopes.com: Media Quiet About San Antonio Theater Shooting

    The gunman started across the street at a restaurant before he fled to the theater. On his way to the theater, he shot at an officer in a marked police car. Once he got to the theater and made a spectacle of himself by ordering everyone down, an off-duty sheriff working security chased the guy into the bathroom and shot him. She and another off-duty officer then restrained the suspect and brought an end to the situation.

    As the Snopes article notes, this situation, while unfortunate, did not have the components to rocket it to national news status. I would also assert that Jeremiah is being dishonest with us when he refers to an off-duty sheriff with 13 years of experience working security as a patron. First, implying that she was an ordinary patron when she was in fact a well-trained and well-experienced police officer is absolutely an obfuscation and distortion of the facts. Second, she was not a patron at all, as she was working security.



    While the magazine was well within its right to fire the author, it's crap like the spin on this San Antonio thing that will likely come out of it.

  10. #10

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by GoldDragonAurkarm View Post
    Oh god not this vigilante superhero nonsense. If that happened, then surely you can furnish a link to a contemporary and local news source that reported it. Such a shooting would have surely made the local newspaper or warranted 90 seconds on the evening newscast or at least been picked up by some locally-oriented news site. Yes, ordinary people can occasionally do extraordinary things. But, they're called extraordinary for a reason. While there's a chance that someone in the theater might have had military training or have been an incredibly steel-nerved dead-eye or just got off a lucky shot, the odds are that a whole bunch of other people would get shot and the wannabe-vigilante would get gunned down by police as another shooter.
    Actually this happens all the time my uncle works as a gas station attendant in LA california and has shot 13 would be armed robbers and of the 13 8 were killed on scene, my father has shot and killed an armed home invader in our house when i was 8. and my cousin was able to ward off an armed mugger by fireing a warning shot at him. this stuff happens all the time. news don't report it because it isn't really news worthy no one cares about how a criminal was shot and killed, if no one innocent had been hurt there is nothing to report. same reason LA news never reported much on gang wars, all their report is is heres where it happened, no one was hurt, stay away from this area. not a slight mention about how many gang members were killed because frankly NO ONE CARES. when crimanals realize their intended victim is armed most of the time they rethink their actions because they have a 50/50 shot if being the one in the hospital.

Similar Threads

  1. Suicide, a constitutional civil right?
    By Muse in forum Mature Topics
    Replies: 90
    Last Post: 05-Jan-2014, 07:06
  2. Replies: 14
    Last Post: 17-Jun-2011, 01:50
  3. CO of USS Enterprise fired over stupidity
    By Locutus2k in forum Off-topic
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 08-Jan-2011, 13:59
  4. You're fired!!!
    By Babyjay85 in forum Adult Babies & Littles
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: 08-Jul-2010, 06:28
  5. Some people need to be fired.
    By Valentine in forum Off-topic
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 28-Apr-2009, 05:44

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
ADISC.org - the Adult Baby / Diaper Lover / Incontinence Support Community.
ADISC.org is designed to be viewed in Firefox, with a resolution of at least 1280 x 1024.