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 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?