If the SCOTUS treated the 2A like the 1A.....
Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2016 1:32 pm
We are trying to end door to door solicitation in our neighborhood and I found the following interesting.
The Supreme Court ruled that solicitation is a form of free speech and the even if they required a permit....
The Supreme Court ruled that solicitation is a form of free speech and the even if they required a permit....
Be whole lot cooler if they could apply this to 2A rights. Maybe something along the lines of carrying a firearm is a 2A right and even making people carry a LTC (or similar) would unlikely preclude a criminal from carrying a gun.The Court further noted that it was unlikely that the absence of a permit would preclude criminals from knocking on doors and engaging in conversations
The US Supreme Court has been very clear on the limited authority of cities to regulate what is considered free speech and religious speech. In the Supreme Court’s decision in Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc. v. Village of Stratton, the Court held that a regulation must be narrowly tailored to a municipality’s interest of protecting its residents from crime and fraud, and it cannot reach too far in scope to prohibit a significant number of noncommercial canvassers promoting a variety of causes. In the case, the Supreme Court noted that it has invalidated restrictions on door-to-door canvassing and pamphleteering for over 50 years, emphasizing the value of the speech involved and extensively discussed the historical importance of door-to-door canvassing and pamphleteering as vehicles for the dissemination of ideas. Per the Court, to require a censorship through license, which makes impossible the free and unhampered distribution of pamphlets, strikes at the very heart of the constitutional guarantees. The Supreme Court also determined that the ordinance failed to pass First Amendment scrutiny because it was not tailored to the village’s stated interests of the prevention of fraud and crime. The Supreme Court determined that the ordinance would have been better served by allowing residents to register the No Solicitation Forms and placing No Solicitation signs on their property, coupled with the residents’ right to refuse to engage in conversation with unwelcome visitors. The Court noted that the annoyance caused by an uninvited knock at the door is the same whether or not the visitor is armed with a permit. The Court further noted that it was unlikely that the absence of a permit would preclude criminals from knocking on doors and engaging in conversations not covered by the ordinance. Moreover, there was an absence of any evidence of a special crime problem related to door-to-door solicitation in the village.
