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: 2) by tathra on Tuesday March 10 2015, @06:49PM
no, it reads that they're supposed to be the same thing, which is what i said.
US Constitution, Section 8 - Powers of Congress
from the Federalist Papers [foundingfathers.info]
plus many other warnings against having standing/permanent armies; in other words, having funds for a permanent army is outside of the powers granted to government, meaning the army is only meant to be the militia conscripted into federal service for limited periods of time. they're supposed to be the same thing, thus no distinction of "equally armed" can exist because they have to be different in the first place before "equally armed" means anything; "the Militia and the Militia should be equally armed" is kind of a meaningless statement, especially since the militias that were to be conscripted were either State or even more Local, so it would be on the State or below to ensure their Militia was armed and trained equally to other States'/Localities' Militias.
(Score: 2) by Spook brat on Tuesday March 10 2015, @09:53PM
. . . no distinction of "equally armed" can exist because they have to be different in the first place before "equally armed" means anything; "the Militia and the Militia should be equally armed" is kind of a meaningless statement . . .
Yep! In other news, longcat is long, and the first rule of Tautology club is... [xkcd.com]
I believe we are dangerously close to being in violent agreement =)
Your assessment is correct, the current state of the armed forces and arms control legislation is far afield from what the Founders intended. I worded the comment the way I did because there's odd talk on the 'Nets; on one hand people talk of citizens not needing military equivalent weaponry, and on the other (as in today's discussion) that citizens have no need of a weapon that has no military function. I like your assessment of the situation, because if citizen == militia == military then all of that odd talk I mentioned is incorrect; being equal, neither is greater than the other and citizens should have access to whatever they can afford in order to defend their families, their homes, and their homeland.
In my ideal America every citizen would have access to the main battle rifle adopted by the Armed Forces, and could be ready to serve at a minute's notice. We'd just need a catchy name for people who do that so it would catch on and become the trendy thing to do... ;^)
Travel the galaxy! Meet fascinating life forms... And kill them [schlockmercenary.com]