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: 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.