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) by Fauxlosopher on Tuesday March 10 2015, @07:35PM
Not at all - I *am* in the militia. So are most USian males. Please refer to 10 USC 311 [cornell.edu]. ("... The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except [for officers and National Guard members], under 45 years of age ...")
This is supported by the Founders' statements, of which one such example was provided by George Mason [constitution.org]: "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 10 2015, @07:55PM
That's fine and all, but the amendment specifically states "a well regulated militia" and not just any ol' militia. All you're doing is even more cherrypicking by ignoring the words "well regulated".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 10 2015, @07:58PM
To further prove my point, the USC you link to even separates the militia you're in - the unorganized militia - and "organized militias", which would be the "well regulated" ones.
So no, you do not count as part of a well regulated - organized - militia simply by being an able-bodied male of the appropriate age.
(Score: 1) by Fauxlosopher on Tuesday March 10 2015, @08:13PM
That's mere speculation on your part. Members of the unorganized militia turned up in Athens [jpfo.org], Bunkerville [youtube.com], and places all throughout the South [wikipedia.org]. Seemed to work pretty well regardless of your opinion of them.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 10 2015, @09:24PM
If that's speculation, then your premise that the unorganized militia counts as a "well regulated" one re:the 2nd Amendment definitely is. Since its not explicitly spelled out (well, it is, otherwise the law wouldn't differentiate between "organized" and "unorganized", but I digress), we'll just have to agree that we're both speculating and we'll never agree.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 10 2015, @09:54PM
It's absolutely not speculation on "unorganized being well regulated", but it is a statement that the government is once again derelict in its duty to equip the militia, etc., as you referenced in your other post [soylentnews.org].
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 10 2015, @11:46PM
So what you're saying is that a militia must be directly under the control and guidance of the government to be a "valid" "well regulated" militia, since you're saying its the government's fault the unorganized militia remains unorganized, which means you're saying "well regulated militia" means "official government militia". I disagree with you there, the militia does not necessarily need to be an official governmental entity, but only needs the government's 'blessing' and must actually have regulations and training, which is the commander's responsibility to organize and enforce not the governments.
At any rate your statement makes it clear we agree that a bunch of Joe Sixpacks with shotguns is not a "well regulated militia".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 10 2015, @11:55PM
I can entertain the correctness that the official, well-regulated militia of nothing but willing volunteers spoken of operates under the command structure of government and that Joe Sixpacks and shotguns is not necessarily a well-regulated militia.
However, none of that changes the fact that the US Constitution was created at the Philadelphia Convention and rested ultimately upon the delegated authority of the single individual American human, of which many voted to elect representatives to the Convention and yet none of which could give any one of themselves nor any subsequent creation of law more authority than any one of them individually had.
If Joe Sixpack wants a bazooka to go with his shotgun, the Constitution has no authority to deny him one.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 10 2015, @11:58PM
Except for that whole pesky "well regulated militia" clause. It needs to be amended to remove that clause and then I'll agree 100%.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 11 2015, @12:08AM
You sure do like to ignore the parts of posts that destroy your argument. I let it slide the first time, but not this time.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 11 2015, @12:23AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_and_spirit_of_the_law [wikipedia.org]
It has already been decided for us that the letter of the law has priority over spirit, so pointing out that the spirit conflicts with the letter means either the letter needs to be changed or that all laws need to be interpreted by spirit instead. The former, amending and updating laws and amendments to better encapsulate the spirit, is actually possible while the latter I'm not so sure about.
(Score: 1) by Fauxlosopher on Wednesday March 11 2015, @12:42AM
... or we can act like free people and remind government agents of what they have ignored or forgotten: a law repugnant to the Constitution is void. Government agents initiating force against others under color of a void law are literal criminals. If idiots in black robes say something stupid [wikipedia.org], that doesn't make it so.
Resisting such criminal government actors has already happened in Tennessee [jpfo.org] and throughout the South [wikipedia.org], and is happening today in New York [dcclothesline.com], Connecticut [americanthinker.com], Nevada [youtube.com], Washington [patrickhenrysociety.com], and elsewhere.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 11 2015, @01:15AM
All of those are for the 2nd, where are similar marches and protests for our lost 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 13th, and 14th amendment rights? If the "second amendment is what protects the other amendments", why do we continue losing them and why does nobody care that they're gone? Those are anything but "resisting such criminal government actors" or "remind[ing] government agents of what they have ignored or forgotten". The constitution is far more than just the second amendment; the second will be meaningless when the entire constitution is rendered void, which is exactly where we're headed when nobody cares about anything but a single sentence in it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 11 2015, @01:31AM
I can only assume you are resorting to desperate misdirection. This story and thread deal with arms and individuals (inside and/or outside of militias). If you had bothered to take the time to actually read my replies to you, you would have read...
... that the underlying principles I wrote about apply to the entire width and breadth of the US Constitution, and address the lawlessness of government agents' conduct with all the amendments you just mentioned. And, no, the principles espoused in the Second Amendment will never be meaningless, as evidenced by the multitude of links previously posted, several of which document armed individuals successfully resisting the criminal conduct of government agents, conduct that covers violations beyond just the Second Amendment.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 11 2015, @01:54AM
[Citation Needed]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 11 2015, @01:59AM
Read, you idiot [soylentnews.org].
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 11 2015, @12:09AM
Allow me to say this too: I am all for interpreting the constitution by the spirit rather than letter, that would be far preferable since then encryption codes for your computer would be covered by the 5th, the internet and email would be covered by the 4th (thankfully SCOTUS agreed that phones are covered, but nothing else yet), the NSA's obvious spying on citizens along with the DEA and TSA would be immediately shut down, "free speech zones" / "constitution-free zones" and using the government to enforce religious laws would never fly, etc. Unfortunately for us, laws and the constitution depend on the letter rather than the spirit (unless and until it gets before the SCOTUS, which isn't even a power granted to them by the constitution), so the letter takes priority over the spirit. Either this needs to be changed or the wording needs to be changed. Since I don't think we'll ever get lucky enough to get the spirit to take precedence over the letter, its our responsibility to ensure the letter is as clear as possible in describing whats intended by the spirit.
(Score: 1) by Fauxlosopher on Tuesday March 10 2015, @08:03PM
You're right, to an extent. I'm personally taking steps to ensure I transition into the best militia member I can practically be, should/when my rifle and I be needed somewhere for militia service. As for the equipment problem, well, you'll have to forgive me for significant lapses there, as the members of the BATFE and FBI will want to kill me [wikipedia.org] if they think I've outfitted myself properly.
You wanna try to help get such criminals off our backs so we can make our shoddy militia into one in good functioning order?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 10 2015, @09:39PM
I'm with you on despising our rogue government and the criminals comprising it, but the constitution is pretty clear that the militia is to be at the beck and call of the federal government - Article 1, Section 8:
As such, any "organized" militia won't necessarily be run by the government, but it will be a governmental/quasi-governnmental entity, blessed by the government and run with its cooperation, the smallest being, what, township? And thats how it is today - there are State Militias beside the National Guard, but they are run with the state's blessing and cooperation, an example of which being the Indiana Volunteer Militia. [indianavolunteermilitia.com] This is an example of a "well regulated" militia. A township militia would be a similar entity, just at the township level instead of state. A bunch of guys sitting around with guns who never train or have regulations calling themselves a militia is not a "well regulated" militia for sure. I'm pretty sure militias like the Indiana Volunteer Militia and are the kind of militias the Founders had in mind when they wrote "militia/well regulated militia".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 10 2015, @09:59PM
Only in as much as any one free human is at the beck and call of another, which is to say with the willing consent of the first or not at all. (Referencing the primary source of government authority, which is ultimately that of a single human individual as evidenced by the mechanics of the Philadelphia Convention.)
Your example of the Indiana Volunteer Militia is a poor one, as it appears that even though they have the physical training down, they lack such equipment as full-auto squad machine guns, Javelin missile systems, and Stinger anti-air systems. Remember that "shall not be infringed" part?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 10 2015, @11:54PM
The second amendment says "well regulated" not "well armed". "Well regulated" means the regulations and training, including weapons training, it does not mean "armed to the teeth". As for "Shall not be infringed", it means just that, "shall not be infringed" not that the government is to supply weapons to anyone who asks for them; with regards to well regulated militias it would mean that the government cannot take the militia's weapons, but requiring a certain level of proficiency and training in order to use them would not be infringing; requiring somebody to demonstrate they know how to drive or aim a tank's main cannon before allowing them to be used is just common sense.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 11 2015, @12:05AM
Now you're starting to squirm like a worm on a hook. Even with conceding to you the point for the sake of argument that the militia must be "well regulated", such a well-regulated militia has absolutely no limit on the type or quantity of arms its members choose to obtain, as evidenced by the phrase you now try to change the meaning of: SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. You cannot have a right of any sort that is governed by a test of any sort.
Sorry, mate - liberty and responsibility are scary. Deal with your fear. Fear is the mind-killer, and, frankly, it's showing in this discussion.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 11 2015, @12:16AM
Yeah, totally squirming by pointing out that words have meanings and making up definitions for words as you see fit in order to support your argument is not a valid method for supporting an argument.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 11 2015, @12:51AM
You tell me: can the keeping and bearing of arms of a well-regulated militia be infringed?
Hurr durr, gee, a restriction on the exercise of a right? That's not an infringement, no, no! Hurr durr. You sure you want to keep acting this brainless? I'd much prefer an honest discussion.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 11 2015, @01:24AM
Yup, restrictions on rights have been ruled perfectly valid by SCOTUS. See "Free speech zones, [wikipedia.org] "Constitution-free zones", [aclu.org] etc, which nobody seems to be protesting, so it seems citizens have accepted restrictions on rights as perfectly valid. The brainless and dishonest one in this discussion is the one intentionally ignoring the legal framework already in place that allows exactly that.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 11 2015, @01:39AM
Your precious collection of blackrobes has also stated that black people aren't human [wikipedia.org]. Are you sure you want to hold them out as the ultimate arbiters of reality?
Once again, as recognized - but not established - by your precious blackrobes, " a law repugnant to the Constitution is void [cornell.edu] "; " an unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed [findlaw.com] ".
If you bother to read the Norton decision linked above, you will note that the blackrobes' argument was that the illegal law was void upon its passage - it was not made void at a later time when the blackrobes gave their ruling.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 11 2015, @01:52AM
Strawmen and ad hominems are how idiots admit they can't support their argument.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 11 2015, @02:07AM
"Strawmen" involves setting up an unrelated point to attack; YOU brought up the SCOTUS.
Ad hominem is attacking the messenger, and I attacked the messages of the SCOTUS.
Of course, I will use ad hominem to point out the obvious in this case in that you are behaving like a literal moron [thefreedictionary.com], jumping about from one point to another like jell-o that doesn't want to be nailed to the wall.