You can't pretend the second amendment can be treated like the first amendment because,

[RoeVWade]

,,, for example, If you misuse your 1st amendment and create a panic by yelling "Fire" in a theater, you still have your 1st amendment if you're locked up and still have your 1st amendment when you get out.

Are we going to pretend you can take your gun to prison and give it back when you get out after you shot someone without legitimate cause?

If the conservative court wants to stop treating the 2nd like a second-class right, and more like the 1st, well, they're very short sighted to say the least.

[ripcord]

1. The problem is that the 2nd is already on par with the 1st

The SCOTUS decisions in 2008 and 2010 not only said owning a gun is a right but they also joined it with the 14th Amendment.

[RoeVWade]

2. but Precedent means nothing now.

The New York law was upheld for a century until now.

[RoeVWade]

3. The first amendment is so expansive, the deranged and those on death row have it by default.

You can only say the two amendments are similar by ignoring critical differences. And as such, why give the 2nd such expansive power? Madness.

[maxsolomon]

4. Wut

Welcome to DU?

[RoeVWade]

5. Here is what I find preposterous.

Thomas says,

"The constitutional right to bear arms in public for selfdefense is not “a second-class right, subject to an entirely
different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.” McDonald, 561 U. S., at 780 (plurality opinion). We
know of no other constitutional right that an individual
may exercise only after demonstrating to government offic-
ers some special need. That is not how the First Amendment works when it comes to unpopular speech or the free
exercise of religion. It is not how the Sixth Amendment
works when it comes to a defendant’s right to confront the
witnesses against him. And it is not how the Second
Amendment works when it comes to public carry for selfdefense."

If we pretend that the second right should be treated like the 1st, then we know some random man from say, Yemin who is not even a U.S. citizen can immediately practice free speech upon setting foot in the country. We don't even need to know who he is or where he's from. Or even if he is here legally and he can practice free speech.

The expansive right of the 1st isn't even in the ballpark to comparison to the 2nd. Contary to what is said above, it very well should be subject to a different body of rules, unless you're a madman.