The Supreme Court has ruled that corporations are real people, the same as you and I, with the same rights. Now they say you can't deny anybody a gun. It won't be long before corporations are packing heat. And then watch out!
I never understood the court's opinion that money is speech and this is along the same vein.
Why should a rich person have a right to more speech than a poor person? A corporation is not a democratic entity. It's probable that the majority of share holders may own the corporation through mutual funds and not even know they are owners. There's no possibility that a corporation can form a political view that represents all the shareholders or all the employees. Just the board and executive management. It makes no sense at all.
notleftright: I never understood the court's opinion that money is speech
You'd think with the rights of citizenship, some of these corporations that went off-shore to avoid paying taxes might be forced to pay their fair share!
How about a law saying that any corporation funding political ads under their new-found "free speech" would have to show they actually paid taxes!?
DevonTexas: You'd think with the rights of citizenship, some of these
The court explicitly upheld the existing prohibitions on who cannot have guns (which includes the mentally incompent and those who have ever been convicted of any felony or of certain misdemeanors).
The Court said that you cannot deny the right of a mentally competent adult with a clean record who is not subject to a domestic restraining order from owning a gun. That is a lot different than "you can't deny ANYBODY a gun."
As to the OP, corporations have always had guns. You'll notice that even in such gun-control utopias as NYC, Chicago, and CA, corporations still have their armed security. Gun control has always been about keeping the "little people" from owning guns, not the wealthy and politically connected.
benEzra: The court explicitly upheld the existing prohibitions on who cannot
the Supreme Court did make it clear that laws similar to those aimed at disarming felons and the mentally ill would pass scrutiny, you really might want to do a bit of research
grossmont328: the Supreme Court did make it clear that laws similar
Why should a rich person have a right to more speech than a poor person? A corporation is not a democratic entity. It's probable that the majority of share holders may own the corporation through mutual funds and not even know they are owners. There's no possibility that a corporation can form a political view that represents all the shareholders or all the employees. Just the board and executive management. It makes no sense at all.
How about a law saying that any corporation funding political ads under their new-found "free speech" would have to show they actually paid taxes!?
The Supreme Court never said any such thing.
The Court said that you cannot deny the right of a mentally competent adult with a clean record who is not subject to a domestic restraining order from owning a gun. That is a lot different than "you can't deny ANYBODY a gun."
As to the OP, corporations have always had guns. You'll notice that even in such gun-control utopias as NYC, Chicago, and CA, corporations still have their armed security. Gun control has always been about keeping the "little people" from owning guns, not the wealthy and politically connected.