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, @07:16PM
Its funny, I keep suggesting to people that the second should be amended to remove the "well-regulated militia" clause in order to prevent a future interpretation of it from enforcing exactly that, that guns could only be owned by people in the militia. Apparently people are more terrified of their pet interpretation not holding up on further examination and/or not holding up when voted on by the population since its the one currently in vogue, than preventing future tyranny and actually having their guns taken by government if it ends up being interpreted exactly as its written. I guarantee that if it were interpreted a different way they'd all be all about amending it.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday March 10 2015, @07:22PM
I guarantee that if it were interpreted a different way they'd all be all about amending it.
The problem is that even when the constitution is clear, the courts often just ignore it in favor of giving the government more power. All sorts of random exceptions are made to the first amendment and fourth amendment (among other things) that the constitution mentions nothing about, and the commerce clause is of course used to give the federal government nearly unlimited power to regulate nearly anything, even things that merely could potentially cross state borders.
It doesn't seem to matter how clear you are. There are no real punishments for any politician or judge who outright ignores the constitution, and they're often cheered on anyway.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 10 2015, @07:40PM
There really are, they're just never enforced:
18 U.S. Code § 1918 [cornell.edu]
By choosing to ignore the constitution or subverting it or suggesting to ignore or subvert it they are advocating the overthrow of our constitutional form of government, and anyone who does and accepts or holds a position in the Government should be fined or imprisoned for up to 366 days or both.