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: 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.