Firing, amid shouts, in a crowded movie theater

Reasonable citizens of all parties, from way liberal to far right, agree that while the First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech, we can’t shout “Fire!” in a crowded theater if there’s no fire.

We have a constitutional right to assemble freely. Nonetheless, a thousand people can’t just walk into the middle of Broadway, stopping traffic and possibly injuring themselves or others. Local officials can regulate assembly for the health and safety of all citizens.

The press is free to expose and castigate the powerful without fear of censorship. But that right is not absolute. The press is not free to maliciously libel someone, nor is it free to incite riot. Its right is limited.

After the murderous horror in a Colorado movie house on July 22, there have been calls for greater federal control of guns. The Second Amendment guarantees citizens the right to keep and bear arms. In 2008, the Supreme Court ruled that individuals may own guns for personal use, unconnected to militia service, in the District of Columbia. In 2010, the court made its 2008 decision applicable to all states.

But we don’t see why that right can’t be reasonably limited for the common good. It should be no more an absolute right than any of our other constitutionally protected freedoms.

From 1994 to 2004, when it expired, there was a ban on the manufacture and possession of 19 semi-automatic firearms and magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition. Semi-automatics are pistols, rifles or shotguns that don’t need to be reloaded after each firing, but rather automatically eject spent shells and replace them with new rounds from a clip or magazine. “Semi” means that one shot is fired when the trigger is pulled, and the shooter needs to pull the trigger again to fire again, in contrast to fully automatic weapons, which discharge rounds continuously as long as the trigger is pulled until the clip is empty.