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: 4, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday March 10 2015, @02:19PM
If you have to ask permission, it is not a right. And since it most assuredly is a right...
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by LaminatorX on Tuesday March 10 2015, @02:55PM
That sort of absolutism leads to our current "Tens of thousands of Mexicans shot with guns bought in the US." situation. I have no problem with people owning firearms for hunting, sport, home defense (though I think the value there is overrated), and so on. However, the current setup prioritizes a fear of a possible-but-unlikely scenario (some sort of authoritarian crackdown mass seizure) over something that is actually killing thousands of people right now (our lax regulation facilitating large-scale smuggling into the war-zone next door).
I don't suggest that someone should have to go play "Mother may I?" with Barney Fife to own a weapon, but deliberately erasing purchase records like we do now gives carte-blanche to smugglers. Ignoring that reality and refusing to even consider common-sense solutions makes us all a little complicit in their crimes, and I hate that.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday March 10 2015, @03:16PM
Personally, I'd be more worried about the ones the government sells to the Mexican cartels [wikipedia.org]. Smuggling there and violating Mexican law should have no meaning to an American unless they are caught in Mexico; we're meant to be free to do what we like both in commerce and with firearm ownership.
As for the rest, there is no valid argument to regulate anything you do not wish to control and private firearms were specifically meant to be off limits to government control. Safety? I'd rather have liberty every single time. Me and Patrick Henry, we're funny that way.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Kromagv0 on Tuesday March 10 2015, @04:11PM
Speaking to the belief that the automatic weapons the drug cartels are using originated from legal US purchases. The thing is that those firearms that were bought in the US and used to kill Mexicans were all legal hunting and sporting firearms when they were purchased in the US. Despite what the law says it really isn't difficult to turn a semi auto AK type weapon into one that can fire semi auto or fully auto as well. I don't know about the AR type weapons as I have never looked at one in any detail but I would imagine that a similar hack would be possible. Granted this would require fabricating some new metal to attach but anyone who has any skill in metal working could do it easily. I highly doubt that someone would go through the effort to purchase an exceedingly expensive fully automatic weapon, with the background check and fingerprinting, only to hand it over to some Mexican drug cartel. Seems like a really quick and easy way to end up in prison as those are tracked very closely.
T-Shirts and bumper stickers [zazzle.com] to offend someone
(Score: 2) by Spook brat on Tuesday March 10 2015, @05:16PM
. . . it really isn't difficult to turn a semi auto AK type weapon into one that can fire semi auto or fully auto as well. I don't know about the AR type weapons as I have never looked at one in any detail but I would imagine that a similar hack would be possible. Granted this would require fabricating some new metal to attach but anyone who has any skill in metal working could do it easily.
You are correct. Most civilian gunsmiths could make the conversion given the appropriate plans for the parts, resulting in a permanently full-auto rifle. In practice, people do exactly what you suggest: there are a couple of ways to add aftermarket components to the firing mechanism. The new parts trick the firing mechanism into thinking you released pressure from the trigger after firing, making the rifle effectively full-auto. At least one of these methods is easily removed and hidden, making proof of the violation tricky (compared to a permanent modification, anyhow).
Friendly reminder: performing these conversions makes you a felon, and the BATF takes keen interest in prosecuting violators. Please don't be stupid.
Travel the galaxy! Meet fascinating life forms... And kill them [schlockmercenary.com]
(Score: 2) by Kromagv0 on Tuesday March 10 2015, @06:19PM
While I did figure out how to modify an AK type weapon in fairly short order (can a semi-auto firearm get much simpler than one of these?) you are correct in that one would be a fool to actually proceed with any such modifications for the exact reasons you cite. My impression of the AK was that it wouldn't even take a skilled gunsmith just someone who can use a hacksaw and files to fabricate something of reasonable quality. The modification I thought of would not have been permanent so the fact that others have likely had similar thoughts and implemented them shouldn't be a surprise. Also full auto is good for expending copious amounts of ammo but not much else. Granted with an AK that would only come out to about $7 per 30 round mag but that still gets expensive quick. Then again I am someone who follows the law and if I get a desire to waste some money one of the gun ranges nearby well rent you one and you don't have to deal with acquiring (legal or otherwise) and maintaining the thing either.
T-Shirts and bumper stickers [zazzle.com] to offend someone
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 10 2015, @04:47PM
That sort of absolutism leads to our current "Tens of thousands of Mexicans shot with guns bought in the US." situation.
You cannot say, "That interpretation leads to undesirable thing X, so it's wrong." If you want to change the constitution, you have to amend it. You can't have the government ignoring it because you don't like the consequences.
As for me, I'll take freedom over safety. Get rid of the TSA, the NSA's mass surveillance, DUI checkpoints, protest permits, stop-and-frisk-like policies, free speech zones, unjust asset forfeiture, unfettered border searches, unconstitutional wiretapping of all forms, and the countless other violations of our liberties and constitution.
(Score: 2) by LaminatorX on Tuesday March 10 2015, @06:50PM
None of our rights are absolute, they all are subject to tests of reasonableness based on the trade off between the freedom of the individual and the harm to others that individual can cause in the exercise of that freedom. I tend to think that keeping track of ownership of dangerous things is not an infringement on one's right to keep and bear them, and could mitigate a lot of harm. It's fine if you disagree and have good reasons for thinking that particular line should be drawn elsewhere, but don't pretend that an absolute interpretation of our rights is the only valid one, or even the norm.
(Score: 1) by Fauxlosopher on Tuesday March 10 2015, @07:01PM
The phrase you're looking for is "prior restraint [wikipedia.org]", and the concept applies just as much to other rights as it does to free speech.
You may well be correct in a nation where those in government own the rest of the people. In a nation where the government's authority originates from and is limited to that of ultimately a single individual, you cannot be correct. Rights are absolute, with the only boundary being those absolute rights of other humans. Protip: there is no right to "feel safe".
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday March 10 2015, @07:29PM
None of our rights are absolute
In the US, if the constitution says they are, then the government has no legitimate authority to claim otherwise.
they all are subject to tests of reasonableness
As defined by the constitution. Sometimes there are no tests of "reasonableness" at all.
There is no reason a right couldn't logically be absolute. That the government chooses to ignore the constitution is a different matter. Some rights are absolute if you apply a logical interpretation of the constitution, rather than modifying it with invisible ink so you can include restrictions you believe are 'reasonable.'
I tend to think that keeping track of ownership of dangerous things is not an infringement on one's right to keep and bear them
Nonsense. What happens if you don't allow yourself to be tracked? You will be punished for keeping and bearing arms in a way the government did not like, which obviously violates your rights.
but don't pretend that an absolute interpretation of our rights is the only valid one, or even the norm.
Whether it is valid or not depends on the issue; sometimes it is. As for being the norm, I don't care what is the norm; most people are both ignorant and unintelligent. Plenty support the NSA's mass surveillance, after all.