Substantial experience and scientific research make clear that firearms are an unlikely antidote to the strife and polarization of our age. When carried in public, they magnify the risk of violence where calm, peace, and order are necessary for an atmosphere conducive to a reasonable exchange of viewpoints.
To preserve our democracy through peaceful civil engagement, states must be able to appropriately regulate firearms in modern First Amendment-protected spaces. Accordingly, this Court cannot reasonably conclude that the Framers of the Second and Fourteenth Amendments meant to create a right to bear arms that would overwhelm and defeat First Amendment rights of free speech, free exercise of religion, peaceable public assembly, the ability to petition the government for redress of grievances, and freedom of the press to report on public events.
There is no evidence that the Framers would have countenanced such an imbalance in our constitutional protections. They meant for our communities to be empowered to protect core individual constitutional rights from the obvious threats posed by the potential for gun violence, intimidation, and other misuse of firearms in parks, museums, and other civic forums. With the legislation and regulations at issue, Maryland has done so in a manner that is fully consistent with the Second Amendment.
— Amicus brief filed by Brady and Giffords in Novotny v. Moore support of Maryland’s “sensitive places” carry ban
Evidently, Brady and Giffords doesn’t understand the case and is grasping at straws with made up stuff trying to create a ‘boogey man’ where none exists,
Another example of Brady and Giffords cherry picking from the “Tree of Liberty”, the U S Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
They continue their feeble arguments with non-relevant nonsense. Their concerns for the ‘children’ are pathetic as they all the while ignore the safety of good citizens.
If the Framers thought it was necessary they would have said so. They didn’t, They said SHAL NOT BE INFRINGED.
This gives some insight into the antis world view.
They see their fellow man their peers, as threats to their rights. As if John could violate the first amendment rights of Jane. Maybe John could but he’d need the cooperation of the state to do so.
The rest of us know John can complain about Janes nonsense all he wants but he is incapable, as a lowly individual, of shutting down her first amendment rights and the only real threat to those and any rights is the state and agents of the state. Antis fear their neighbors and trust the state while the pros trust their neighbors and fear the state.
Or, maybe the antis don’t really feel this way and they’re just making disingenuous arguments to get what they want however they can.