Texas On Brink Of Legalizing Concealed Carry At All Colleges

a reply to: SlapMonkey

It is a question. What is the crime in yelling "fire"?

I can ask it a different way if you like.

If someone yells "fire!" in a movie theater, what is the crime that the yeller will be charged with if nobody gets up and tramples anybody else?

a reply to: greencmp
Reckless Endangerment I would assume. If you deliberately create the circumstances of harm you are not innocent just because of blind luck no one is injured.

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: SlapMonkey

It is a question. What is the crime in yelling "fire"?

I can ask it a different way if you like.

If someone yells "fire!" in a movie theater, what is the crime that the yeller will be charged with if nobody gets up and tramples anybody else?

Allow myself to quote...myself:

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
To directly answer your question, the crime in yelling "Fire!" in this scenario--if a panic is not incited--would be "attempt to incite mass panic" or something similar, obviously depending on terminology of local laws.

I don't quite understand what you don't get about my answer...the broken law is that you attempted to break a law (inciting mass panic [or something similar]). Just because the attempt to break the law failed doesn't meant that there's still not a way to indict you in a crime.

Ever heard of ATTEMPTED murder? ATTEMPTED breaking and entering? ATTEMPTED anything? Yes, even ATTEMPTING to break the law is, in and of itself, breaking the law. Sometimes all you need is intent...and, like I said, the person doing the attempted law breaking must be proven to reasonably know what he/she was trying to do.

Whether or not you understand my answer at this point, I'm done with this merry-go-round, as I'm getting tired of repeating myself.

Simple activity--go yell "Fire!" in a theater on opening night of a blockbuster movie--say, Star Wars: Episode 7, when it comes out--and see what happens. Try using the 1st Amendment as your defense--let me know how your conviction goes and what the punishment is.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: greencmp
Reckless Endangerment I would assume. If you deliberately create the circumstances of harm you are not innocent just because of blind luck no one is injured.

Thank you, all I was asking for was a specific charge.

So, would reckless endangerment be a limitation on free speech or a "conspiracy to commit a crime" sort of thing?

If someone yelled "set all dogs on fire!" in a packed animal shelter, is that also a crime?

If someone yelled "take the money!" in a bank, would that be a crime? "Free beer" at a pub, etc.

If nobody stormed the counter, still a crime? If so, is it reckless endangerment? Did it have to do with the specific words spoken or the act of speaking?

I maintain that speech is never a crime. It is the consequences of acts and speech that can cause violence and is therefore criminal, not the speech itself.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Okay, great, thanks to you as well for responding.

Here is a much safer way to test your postulate.

Show me someone who has been charged with "attempt to incite mass panic" by yelling "fire!" in a theater that didn't go berserk.

Why so much pushback on a hypothetical, could it be because this issue isn't clear to Americans, they don't know that free speech is protected under the constitution?

a reply to: greencmp
My understanding (and my legal expertise is fairly limited) is that it is criminal if there is reasonable expectation that what you say could result in harm.
So shouting fire in situation that could easily result in panic could be criminal. As people are unlikely to react to exhortations set fire to dogs or steal money not so much.
Free beer in pub? That is just crazy talk.
As a point of interest is speech is never a crime what is your view on slander/libel (admittedly civil offences)

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: greencmp
My understanding (and my legal expertise is fairly limited) is that it is criminal if there is reasonable expectation that what you say could result in harm.
So shouting fire in situation that could easily result in panic could be criminal. As people are unlikely to react to exhortations set fire to dogs or steal money not so much.
Free beer in pub? That is just crazy talk.
As a point of interest is speech is never a crime what is your view on slander/libel (admittedly civil offences)

Those are civil cases, not criminal.

I hope everyone ponders these examples, they are part of the legitimate debate about the constitutionality and feasibility of limiting the scope of the first amendment.

This topic (on the whole) is about abridging the second amendment in certain as yet to be specified and unanticipatable ways.

For instance, would anyone here say that it would be OK if the army used your house as a barracks without your consent, sometimes?

a reply to: greencmp
Interestingly there are criminal libel laws in some US states (I wouldn't have thought there would be due to the 1st and American legal tradition).
While on a simple theoretical level absolute rights sound wonderful in practise there have to be restrictions, especially when the rights are defined in general terms as with the US constitution.
The right to free speech can't allow you to tell lies that can have dangerous consequences.
The right to bear arms doesn't mean you can keep a nuclear bomb in your apartment.
The question isn't are there restrictions but what level of restriction is still in the spirit of the rights.

originally posted by: SonOfThor
All logic goes back to the basic premise that criminals will not obey the laws, period. I mean, VA Tech didn't allow guns on campus but somehow the law didn't stop tragedy.

You can never stop these types of tragedies. The criminal always gets the first shot and the first choice of target.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: greencmp
Interestingly there are criminal libel laws in some US states (I wouldn't have thought there would be due to the 1st and American legal tradition).
While on a simple theoretical level absolute rights sound wonderful in practise there have to be restrictions, especially when the rights are defined in general terms as with the US constitution.
The right to free speech can't allow you to tell lies that can have dangerous consequences.
The right to bear arms doesn't mean you can keep a nuclear bomb in your apartment.
The question isn't are there restrictions but what level of restriction is still in the spirit of the rights.

Again, consequences of speech only, not speech, are potentially criminal.

You sound like a tried and true constitutional revisionist and would fit in here just dandy. Your opinion rings true throughout our educational system.

It seems pragmatic and safe, intelligent and normal even to dismiss the guarantees of our constitution as foolish and short-sighted. You are certainly not alone, most people on planet earth think our constitution is silly and unrealistic.

Our government in particular would adore you.

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Show me someone who has been charged with "attempt to incite mass panic" by yelling "fire!" in a theater that didn't go berserk.

This is something that I assume you are fully capable of researching yourself, as I've done enough hand-holding thus far. But keep in mind, just because someone can technically be charged for something doesn't mean that they will. I'm quite confident in the assumption that people have yelled something similar in theaters and were just escorted out of the building by management...or just told to shut the hell up. In all cases, though, they're breaking the law.

Why so much pushback on a hypothetical, could it be because this issue isn't clear to Americans, they don't know that free speech is protected under the constitution?

Is that a serious question? I haven't been giving pushback, I've been giving information--multiple times--as to why it is illegal to do your hypothetical. Whether you are incapable or unwilling to accept that fact is the only thing that I can't figure out.

This branch of this discussion has exhausted its life.

originally posted by: greencmpI hope everyone ponders these examples, they are part of the legitimate debate about the constitutionality and feasibility of limiting the scope of the first amendment.

This topic (on the whole) is about abridging the second amendment in certain as yet to be specified and unanticipatable ways.

I think that the problem that you can't seem to get beyond is that I have been talking about state laws concerning the first amendment--the first amendment only addresses what the congress at the federal level can not do concerning laws that abridge the freedom of speech. The first amendment says nothing about how states or private businesses can limit free speech.

This is your fundamental problem with the first amendment, as it only dictates to the federal government.

I absolutely will concede that the language of the second amendment has a much broader scope, implying that the right to keep and bear arms can not be infringed--by anyone or any business or any government. The problem lies with the SCOTUS ruling that this just isn't how broad the second amendment is, and therefore we can only go by the legal precedent, of which I sometimes agree and disagree.

For instance, would anyone here say that it would be OK if the army used your house as a barracks without your consent, sometimes?

It doesn't matter what anyone here would say, because the third amendment keeps that from happening during peace time, and only by specific federal law during war time, which hasn't been needed because we don't have large-scale wars on our soil (yet).

But since you asked for opinions, I don't think forced occupations of anyone's private property is okay.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

It is pretty simple, I think the Constitution and Bill of Rights of the United States of America guarantee against the infringement of very specific rights without exception.

You do not.

a reply to: greencmp
No the potential consequences of speech can also be criminal just as the potential consequences of an action can be criminal.
I for one don't think the US constitution is silly or unrealistic. Many elements of it can and should be used as the model for constitutions world wide. I do think a literal unchanging interpretation as taken by extreme libertarians is unrealistic.
As for the your government adoring me I am pretty sure my politics are not shared by any US government of recent years.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: greencmp
No the potential consequences of speech can also be criminal just as the potential consequences of an action can be criminal.

That's what I said.

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: luthier

Your understanding of the 2nd is lacking.

It does not provide anywhere in its text the right to the Govt to restrict firearms/arms ownership or carrying.
Nor does it provide any legal groundwork to remove rights from people that have been released from prison.

Your knowledge of constitutional amendments, history, the branches of power, and the constitution is limited. The government has every right to amend the constitution, make laws, and make local public ordanences.

Some gun owners make yourselfs targets.

We need to compromise with our fellow citizens my friend. Carrying firearms around in public in modern society should have rules. As a gun owner i want them. There are loads of idiots who dont have the right to infringe on my families personal liberty by being inept with their deadly weapon. Again what about privTe property rights? I cant tell you not to bring your firearm to my property or bussiness? Now that sounds tyranical.

a reply to: greencmpSorry if I have misunderstood and I may be being overly pedantic but I think that there is difference in meaning between potential consequences being criminal and consequences being potentially criminal.
If you agree that people are responsible for what can occur as a result of what they say then you must surely agree that free speech isn't an absolute right. Or to get back to the practical example it certainly can be illegal to shout "fire" in a crowded theatre.
To try and draw back to the topic I don't think that a right to bear arms can in the real world guarantee the right to carry any weapon anywhere at any time.

Good on Texas. If law abiding gun-owners want to conceal carry, I say they should be allowed.

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
Good on Texas. If law abiding gun-owners want to conceal carry, I say they should be allowed.

What aboit the logistics? What do you do with your gun in buildings that dont allow firearms? Should you have guns in students with mental health services buildings, the school dr's office etc? Does the school have to provide lock boxes?

Is their a test for ccl that shows how to hit taegets in a crowded place with a subcompact? What aboit hit a target under stress and lower your heart rate.
I have a texas ccl and none of that is done. Hopefully they change the rules to create better marksman in such a highly populated area. They should also be tested at least 4 times a year for acurracy then i would support this. Other wise its just a time bomb waiting for the next accident or theft.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: greencmpSorry if I have misunderstood and I may be being overly pedantic but I think that there is difference in meaning between potential consequences being criminal and consequences being potentially criminal.
If you agree that people are responsible for what can occur as a result of what they say then you must surely agree that free speech isn't an absolute right. Or to get back to the practical example it certainly can be illegal to shout "fire" in a crowded theatre.
To try and draw back to the topic I don't think that a right to bear arms can in the real world guarantee the right to carry any weapon anywhere at any time.

I think we are in agreement. The transgression or aggression occurs in actions taken or endured post speech, I am asserting that the speech is not illegal but the consequences are. Furthermore, the speech is relevant to any assessment of guilt for instigation or misleading.

Similarly, the second amendment ensures the right keep and bear arms but, their misuse or abuse is not protected. Only the tools of political expression such as speech and arms are protected.

I know that scares you, it is supposed to.