SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the how-your-food-really-gets-made dept.
A federal judge in Idaho has ruled that an "ag-gag" law is unconstitutional. For those unfamilar, an ag-gag law, as defined by the article is "[a law that] outlawed undercover investigations of farming operations, is no more. A judge in the federal District Court for Idaho decided Monday that it was unconstitutional, citing First Amendment protections for free speech". As reported:
Laws in Montana, Utah, North Dakota, Missouri, Kansas and Iowa have also made it illegal for activists to smuggle cameras into industrial animal operations. But now those laws' days could be numbered, according to the lead attorney for the coalition of animal welfare groups that sued the state of Idaho.
"This is a total victory on our two central constitutional claims," says University of Denver law professor Justin Marceau, who represented the plaintiff, the Animal Legal Defense Fund, in the case. "Ag-gag laws violate the First Amendment and Equal Protection Clause. This means that these laws all over the country are in real danger."
"Ag-gag" refers to a variety of laws meant to curb undercover investigations of agricultural operations, often large dairy, poultry and pork farms. The Idaho law criminalized video or audio recording of a farm without the owner's consent, and lying to a farm owner to gain employment there to do an undercover investigation.
Previously: Dairy Lobbyist Crafted Idaho's "Ag-Gag" Legislation.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday August 05 2015, @02:44PM
Sounds like, or is?
No court has ever ruled that a convict should have the right to own weapons. Not that I have ever heard of, anyway. Nor has any court ruled the the dangerously insane should be supplied with weapons. And, that is my position - people who abuse animals are dangerously insane.
While it is true that not all animal abusers move on to abuse people - virtually all people abusers started out by abusing animals. The correlations have been shown often enough.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday August 05 2015, @02:50PM
Sounds like, or is?
Is. Read the second amendment if you don't believe me; it doesn't list a single exception. The courts are irrelevant, as the courts use a fake version of the constitution of their own making rather than the real one (or rather, they just ignore the constitution). I don't expect anything from them. Neither convicts nor the "dangerously insane" can be prohibited from owning weapons in a constitutional way.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday August 05 2015, @03:15PM
That would be alright with me. Let them get weapons. If I have to shoot a convict or a nut, the defense should be a hell of a lot easier. "Your honer, the bastard was talkng crazy, and waving a gun around, and pointing it at me. So, I shot him before I got shot!"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 05 2015, @04:17PM
Except for that whole "well-regulated militia" part. You know, literally half the amendment. Per the constitution, only members of a well-regulated militia should have access to firearms.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday August 05 2015, @04:33PM
Totally Fucking Wrong
I'm fully aware of the "well regulated militia" bit. I AM THE MILITIA! Well, I was for a few decades - now I'm exempt. Every able bodied male between the ages of 18 and 45 is the militia. Sorry, women's libbers - you ain't the militia. You CAN BE, but you ain't, by definition.
Before you pull up that "well regulated militia", I suggest that you LEARN TO FUCKING READ! Reading comprehension requires that you understand the definitions of the words you read. It also requires that you understand the definitions intended by the author(s). In this case, all able bodied males were subject to call-up by the militia. All of them. A lot of not-so-able-bodied people answered the call anyway, because they thought it un-manly to sit out a war.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday August 05 2015, @06:14PM
If you believe that the second amendment guarantees individuals the right to keep and bear arms, then you're not really a supporter of the second amendment if you also believe in random arbitrary limits, because the second amendment lists no limits.
If you do not believe that the second amendment guarantees individuals the right to keep and bear arms, you might be more consistent than the fake second amendment supporters. But given that it mentions "the people", and given what a militia was at the time, it's more accurate to consider it an individual right. So the courts have been somewhat correct so far. Regardless, even absent the second amendment, the constitution does not explicitly grant the federal government the power to forbid individuals from owning weapons, so it doesn't have such a power. Some people who want gun control actually realize that you have to amend the constitution to fix the situation, rather than just ignore it. Much like the foolish prohibitionists realized they would have to amend the constitution. Now various drugs are declared illegal on a whim, in violation of the constitution. Where will this nonsense end?