SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the founding-fathers-didn't-have-tazers dept.
Massachusetts' ban on the private possession of stun guns—an "electrical weapon" under the statute—does not violate the Second Amendment right to bear arms, the state's top court has ruled.
The decision says ( http://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/stungunMA-ruling.pdf ) (PDF) that the US Constitution's framers never envisioned the modern stun-gun device, first patented in 1972. The top court said stun guns are not suitable for military use, and that it did not matter whether state lawmakers have approved the possession of handguns outside the home.The court, ruling in the case of a Massachusetts woman caught with stun gun, said the stun gun is a "thoroughly modern invention" not protected by the Second Amendment, although handguns are protected.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Leebert on Tuesday March 10 2015, @11:50AM
Hrm. Let's just apply this logic to a different topic and see how it holds up:
Yep. Seems legit.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 10 2015, @12:43PM
This is actually what I thought the article was about from the headline. I legitimately expect this from the US government.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by GungnirSniper on Tuesday March 10 2015, @12:55PM
What do you expect when the Democrats have 85% of the Senate and 78% of the House? The Republican Governor Baker can't stop them if they're united in foolishness.
Local gun groups are surprised this woman sued in State court as opposed to Federal, since the judiciary here is overwhelmingly anti-gun rights.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Tuesday March 10 2015, @01:22PM
How on Earth is it a "one-party state" when they have a Republican governor, and have had other Republican governors in the past (including, famously, Mitt Romney)?
Here's a clue: a "one-party state" is one in which a single political party is totally dominant in both elected branches of government.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday March 10 2015, @01:41PM
When you can override a veto on a whim, it doesn't matter who's in the executive branch.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by GungnirSniper on Tuesday March 10 2015, @02:25PM
They have veto-proof powers in both houses, meaning that the governor can be reduced to an administrator.
It is partly the fault of Republicans, as they do not contest every race.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 10 2015, @04:34PM
And they run nutjobs as candidates, who want to push ultra-Christian, anti-family agendas. There are quite a few Republicans in our fair state, and the state really isn't as overwhelmingly liberal as it's made out to be. Moderate Republicans tend to do fairly well in many areas. Hell in my town there's a towing company with the confederate flag on all their vehicles that gets to be in an annual parade, which I find so utterly distasteful and disgraceful to our country and our veterans, as it's blatantly un-American. I'm fairly liberal and I've strongly considered many conservative candidates until they start talking about gutting our schools, forcing me to pay for a private pipeline with tax dollars while putting it through public nature areas, or pushing ultra-Christian agendas into schools. I really think a more centrist libertarian candidate who focused on getting the government out of our business would do far better in the state.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday March 10 2015, @04:15PM
It's one party in practice because both parties are just two sides of the same coin. They're all hardcore authoritarians who want to scrap the constitution and our fundamental liberties in various ways.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Tuesday March 10 2015, @05:14PM
It is One Party in the sense that even the Republicans are generally indistinguishable from Democrats in States like CA, NY, MA, IL, etc. See Romney, Mitt. Plus, see the other replies which make good points as well.
Washington DC is pretty much the same. Republicans take the Congress in theory and absolutely nothing changed. One Party rule.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 10 2015, @03:04PM
I expect the court system to stop unconstitutional laws.
(Score: 2) by Marand on Tuesday March 10 2015, @12:57PM
The decision says that the US Constitution's framers never envisioned the modern Internet, first activated in 1969. The top court said the Internet is not suitable for journalistic use, and that it did not matter whether state lawmakers have approved the use of the Internet for journalism.
The court, ruling in the case of a Massachusetts woman caught with a blog, said the blog is a "thoroughly modern invention" not protected by the First Amendment, although newspapers are protected.
Is that really the way you want to go with that analogy? More often than not, it seems like the lawmakers and judges look at the internet as a special entity that has no protections under the Constitution or existing law. Wiretapping law doesn't apply because internet; warrants don't matter because internet; bloggers can't be journalists because internet; etc. It's like a nastier version of the "on the internet!" patent trolling: if an old law ensures a person has rights and you find it inconvenient, that's okay, because it no longer applies if you do that thing on the internet.
If anything, many judges and lawmakers would likely read your revised quote and nod in agreement, rather than see a problem with the logic in the new context. The last line especially sounds like something that would actually come out of a US court. You probably would have done better with a racism analogy.
---
Out of curiosity, and only tangentially related to the article or your comment, I did a brief search for "bloggers not journalists" and it turned up three trials on one blogger's case, two of which came to the same sort of conclusion as your quote. It took three years and two "you are not a journalist" verdicts before a court declared that a blogger is protected by the first amendment, [theatlantic.com] and even then it still reads like "you aren't a newspaper so you don't really count". Another hit on the search led to another case [nj.com] in NJ that decided that bloggers aren't protected by journalist shield law.
(Score: 2) by linuxrocks123 on Tuesday March 10 2015, @04:23PM
Very good point. I'd like to point out as well that Massachusetts is the state behind Commonwealth v. Gelfgatt [privacyandsecuritymatters.com], a decision which, contrary to federal Eleventh Circuit precedent, ruled that it's not a violation of the 5th Amendment to force someone to reveal disk encryption keys.
Now, Massachusetts isn't in the Eleventh Circuit, so it's fine for them to rule a different way since the Supreme Court hasn't spoken. But the Eleventh Circuit decision -- correctly cited by the dissenters -- should have been at least persuasive, especially given the merits of the arguments. The Eleventh Circuit argument was "a memorized encryption key is like a memorized safe combination, not like a physical key, and Supreme Court precedent is that memorized safe combinations cannot be compelled", while the argument of the majority was basically, "computers are different, so we can do what we want". Common law says you're supposed to try to follow precedent and not "break new ground" unless you really have to.
Based on these two cases, it would seem Massachusetts is prone to "computers-are-different-so-we-can-do-what-we-want" syndrome.
(Score: 2) by TheRaven on Tuesday March 10 2015, @04:26PM
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
This seems to imply, as the judgement says, that constraints on weapons that would not be useful to a body of citizens wishing to form a militia (i.e. those not suitable for military use) could be banned without constitutional issues. The corollary for this, of course, is that banning weapons that do have military uses (e.g. the assault rifle ban) should cause constitutional problems.
sudo mod me up
(Score: 3, Informative) by khallow on Tuesday March 10 2015, @04:56PM
This seems to imply, as the judgement says, that constraints on weapons that would not be useful to a body of citizens wishing to form a militia (i.e. those not suitable for military use) could be banned without constitutional issues. The corollary for this, of course, is that banning weapons that do have military uses (e.g. the assault rifle ban) should cause constitutional problems.
Where is this implication? I don't see it. "Because we want X, we do Y." has as its legal content "we do Y". "Because we want X" is justification which can and should be ignored - especially when it's misused to block slight innovations and such.
Also, if we're going with weapons suitable for military use, that means we ought to be throwing less obstacles in the way of acquiring things like fully outfitted tanks, machine guns, missiles, land mines, bayonets, and so on. I'm confident the court won't suddenly decide those weapons deserve the protection of the Second Amendment.
Finally, this is a broken basis because tasers do have military use (Military Police training with tasers [army.mil]).
I think this is just a typical sophist argument. The court didn't want to legalize tasers so they constructed a legal argument for precluding tasers from the Second Amendment protection. Similarly, they won't want heavy military gear to fall under Second Amendment protection, so they'll construct another argument for that. That the arguments are contradictory doesn't matter. It's the outcome they want. I don't think that should be the role of the courts.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 10 2015, @07:06PM
No, they have police use, not military. That the policemen are military does not make their tools military tools. Everyone in the military is a rifleman first, their MOS second, not a policeman first and a rifleman second.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday March 10 2015, @07:18PM
No, they have police use, not military. That the policemen are military does not make their tools military tools. Everyone in the military is a rifleman first, their MOS second, not a policeman first and a rifleman second.
No, the two aren't exclusive. And to the contrary, if the policemen are military, then the tools are military tools. As I noted, we have an example of military use for a taser. Case closed as far as I'm concerned.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 10 2015, @07:30PM
So you think MRI machines, CAT scanners, the Bible, Quran, Torah, gasoline, pens, pencils, paper, gavels, computers... No, wait, this will save time - the military uses pretty much everything, nearly every job that exists in the civilian word has a military equivalent, so you're saying every tool and every thing are "military tools". The point of using descriptive adjectives is to narrow down the meaning of the word. If "military tool" is used a synonym for "tool", then you saying "[they] are military tools" is the exact same as saying "[they] are tools", and the phrase "military tools" is meaningless.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday March 10 2015, @11:30PM
(Score: 2) by frojack on Tuesday March 10 2015, @08:38PM
The text of the second amendment is probably one of the most fiercely debated subjects in constitutional law.
The militia angle has been thoroughly debunked as the principal and primary justification, by constitutional scholars researching the writings of the conventions as well as those demanding a bill of rights.
Most of these recognize that the amendment had nothing to do with militia service, and was designed to allow the active resistance to a run-away government. Having just overthrown a king, the country was well aware of the need for arms. Militia also does not mean military. A militia was always a STATE force, never a federal army. Those writing the bill of rights didn't want to appear to be blessing the overthrow, so they dialed it back to what might be needed to form or serve in a state militia, seemingly eliminating cannon, etc. But remember, the primary intent was to prevent a dictatorial government.
The 2nd never mentioned "firearms". It just mentioned "arms".
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Wednesday March 11 2015, @03:44AM
The text of the second amendment is probably one of the most fiercely debated subjects in constitutional law.
Only by the dishonest. Any High School English teacher worthy of their position (well ok, maybe not these days, but twenty years ago) can diagram out the one sentence composing the 2nd Amendment and tell you which parts are which. The SCOTUS itself did a pretty definitive job of it themselves in their recent decison in Heller. The quality of the scholarship in the two opinions wasn't even close. One side was basing it's opinion in the clear text of the Amendment as written in the English Language understood at the time, the Law as written and understood at the time, etc. The other was 'guns are scary and we don't give a damn what old white guys wrote two hundred years ago.'
So I'd have written that as "The text of the second amendment is probably the most subject to cheap demagoguery in all of Constitutional law." As you wrote it you were implying the other side was arguing in good faith. They weren't.
A militia was always a STATE force...
That line of argument still leads to a reading of the 2nd where the government is granting itself the right to have weapons. No, the 'militia' encompasses every able bodied male capable of being mustered into military service. The word by itself encompasses both the organized militia (at the time including a lot of private militia companies, often employer based) along with the 'unorganized militia.'
The 2nd never mentioned "firearms". It just mentioned "arms".
Yup, amazing how few gun banners (and even some 'gun nuts') seem utterly convinced the 2nd is protecting the right to own guns. Nope, ALL arms. Private militia companies of the day owned cannon. I'd be willing to compromise though, just to prove how willing I am to reach across the isle and meet the other side half way and all that. How about crew served weapons must be held in a licensed militia company's armory which must meet standards of security, etc. but any personal arm is Constitutional Carry.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 11 2015, @05:15AM
So one side was reading the amendment clearly as it was written, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..."
And the other side, despite being all "guns are scary", decided to ignore literally half of the amendment as written, which is how the "well regulated Militia" part ended up being completely ignored?
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Wednesday March 11 2015, @04:44PM
This ignorant and illiterate argument? Really?
Lets just keep the argument simple here on a dead thread. Do you know the difference between an army and the militia? The men who wrote the 2nd Amendment did. The militia is every able bodied male capable of bearing arms, expected to appear when called armed and trained to defend their homeland. An army is a permanent military force trained and armed by the State. The Founders knew armies to be dangerous to liberty while a well regulated (not so much regulated in the modern sense, a dictionary is your friend) and well armed militia was both a defender and a friend of a Free People.
But if you were taught English in school you also know the expository clause doesn't limit the very clear final phrase. Also finally, remember that the entire Bill of Rights must be read in the sense they were proposed and ratified, as additional limitations on a Federal Government that some thought had been given too much power in the original Constitution. The status quo at the time was the possession of arms was universally agreed to be a basic human right and there is zero historical evidence that anyone who wrote the 2nd Amendment or that a single legislator who voted to ratify it meant to in any way limit the inherent Right of Free Men for self defense, a Right that goes back into English Common Law a long way before the Revolution. If you read the 2nd in the same way as the other nine, as limits of the power of the Federal Government to infringe the Rights of the People, there is only one way to interpret it.
Please spend the hour or so needed to go actually read the SCOTUS's actual decision in Heller, it is an argument ender unless you are a Progressive and thus heedless of any argument because you simply reject the premise of the argument, that we are living in a Constitutional Republic and the Rule of Law.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday March 11 2015, @09:11PM
And the other side, despite being all "guns are scary", decided to ignore literally half of the amendment as written, which is how the "well regulated Militia" part ended up being completely ignored?
English working as intended. There's no point to this argument.
(Score: 2) by TheRaven on Wednesday March 11 2015, @10:33AM
That line of argument still leads to a reading of the 2nd where the government is granting itself the right to have weapons.
Minor quibble, but the constitution is not about the government granting itself any rights, it is about the people granting the government some rights.
sudo mod me up
(Score: 1) by Aichon on Wednesday March 11 2015, @04:20AM
Much as I don't like the law, it's not necessarily contradictory to begin with.
Let M be "has military use"
Let B be "is banned"
What the court said was:
If not M then B
What the previous poster is arguing is that we should be able to infer the following is true:
If M then not B
But that logical implication clearly doesn't hold true. After all, as you pointed out, military stuff may be banned for other reasons that they invent.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 10 2015, @09:47PM
Oh, you just found out about 'net neutrality'?