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, @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.