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: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 10 2015, @04:40PM
So, in other words, the "militia" is everyone registered for selective service (the draft)
The selective service didn't even exist at the time. Private individuals owned weapons from the beginning of the country, draft or no draft. Your interpretation ignores historical documents, as well as long legal precedent that has long held that the 2nd amendment guarantees private individuals the right to own firearms (precedents which correctly take into account historical document). You instead choose to focus on wording, using a modern understanding of the language. That's a recipe for disaster.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 10 2015, @06:58PM
Which is exactly why it should be amended, so that the wording can't be used to justify different interpretations in the future. Although the specific wording is already used to say the 4th Amendment doesn't apply to the internet, etc, because they didn't exist at the time it was written. So either the spirit applies or the wording does, choose one; you cannot say the spirit applies for the 2nd but the wording applies for the 4th and other amendments, which is what we have going on now.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 10 2015, @08:42PM
Which is exactly why it should be amended, so that the wording can't be used to justify different interpretations in the future.
And then language will change and people will misinterpret it again. Then we'll need another amendment, which will take a long time.
you cannot say the spirit applies for the 2nd but the wording applies for the 4th and other amendments
I don't say that. The government violates the 4th amendment with mass surveillance, etc. The spirit applies to both.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Tuesday March 10 2015, @09:19PM
Which is the entire point of having the Constitutional Amendment process in the first place, to update the Constitution when necessary due to changes in times or meanings of words.