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 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].