A law that makes it illegal to exercise 1st Amendment rights and 2nd Amendment rights at the same time will not withstand scrutiny. Neither of those rights are mutually exclusive. Shenanigans like this is how the recent NY Rifle and Pistol Association vs Bruen SCOTUS case came to be. NY pushes unenforceable restrictions on rights regularly.
I suppose we will have to see how the case goes. Bruen specifically prohibited broad restrictions on what a sensitive place can be. ‘Anywhere people are exercising 1st Amendment rights in public’ is almost certainly going to fail this test from Bruen.
A firearm ban at protests would not qualify as a broad restriction. It is targeted towards a particular type of gathering where emotions can run hot, things can get violent quite easily, and the use of a firearm, even in an otherwise legitimate scenario, would cause a ton of collateral injuries or deaths via a crowd crush.
Best case scenario you are willingly placing yourself in a situation where you forsee the “need” to use a deadly weapon. But in that case there is no need to brandish that gun unless you want others to know you could kill them and planned for that by choosing to bring a gun which is intimidation. Especially if you are in a large crowd where people have to trust that you wont go apeshit in a place they cant escape from.
A law that makes it illegal to exercise 1st Amendment rights and 2nd Amendment rights at the same time will not withstand scrutiny.
Maybe not at the federal level, but there’s a whole gauntlet of “the 2nd amendment is just a suggestion” types to get through before the case makes its way up there.
A law that makes it illegal to exercise 1st Amendment rights and 2nd Amendment rights at the same time will not withstand scrutiny. Neither of those rights are mutually exclusive. Shenanigans like this is how the recent NY Rifle and Pistol Association vs Bruen SCOTUS case came to be. NY pushes unenforceable restrictions on rights regularly.
Not being allowed to bring something to a protest does not infringe on your first amendment rights at all
Not being allowed to take a gun somewhere specific is already a thing, and thus does not infringe the second amendment
I suppose we will have to see how the case goes. Bruen specifically prohibited broad restrictions on what a sensitive place can be. ‘Anywhere people are exercising 1st Amendment rights in public’ is almost certainly going to fail this test from Bruen.
A firearm ban at protests would not qualify as a broad restriction. It is targeted towards a particular type of gathering where emotions can run hot, things can get violent quite easily, and the use of a firearm, even in an otherwise legitimate scenario, would cause a ton of collateral injuries or deaths via a crowd crush.
You do not have a right to intimidate other people with a deadly weapon.
The article specifically says she did no such thing. “At no point in time was anyone menaced or injured as a result of her possessing the firearm”
As I said, one may exercise 1st Amendment rights and 2nd Amendment rights at the same time. They are not mutually exclusive.
Best case scenario you are willingly placing yourself in a situation where you forsee the “need” to use a deadly weapon. But in that case there is no need to brandish that gun unless you want others to know you could kill them and planned for that by choosing to bring a gun which is intimidation. Especially if you are in a large crowd where people have to trust that you wont go apeshit in a place they cant escape from.
Maybe not at the federal level, but there’s a whole gauntlet of “the 2nd amendment is just a suggestion” types to get through before the case makes its way up there.