[courtesy of California Progress Report]

By Bill Cavala
A veteran of over 30 years in Sacramento

The Federal Constitution’s First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting the content of “speech”. This restriction on government was extended to the states with the 14th Amendment. The “time, place and manner” of a speech maybe subject to regulation, as can the content if it constitutes a “clear and present danger” to the public – such as “shouting fire in a crowded theater”.

In a political campaign, the court’s have recognized that “money is speech”, and that, because campaign activity is the purest form of protected expression, any proposed restriction would be subject to the strictest scrutiny. Corruption or its’ appearance may justify restrictions on contributions to corruptible politicians, but not to ballot measure efforts because the people, in a democracy, are incorruptible.

[courtesy of California Progress Report]

By Bill Cavala
A veteran of over 30 years in Sacramento

The District of Columbia, marred by gun murders, passed a local ordinance banning the private possession of handguns.

The NRA et. al. filed lawsuits saying the government did not have the right to do so because of the prohibition of the Second Amendment to the Federal Constitution which establishes the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Back in the 1930’s, the US Supreme Court opinioned that the “right to keep and bear arms” was a right held by State Militias and not individual citizens. For the last 80 years, guns zealots have argued that the Court’s interpretation was wrong – that the Founder’s intent was to protect the gun in each American’s home.

For better or worse, however, gun zealots don’t determine the Constitution’s meaning. The US Supreme Court does.