The Right to bear muskets?!?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by lostngone, Mar 9, 2015.

  1. lostngone macrumors demi-god

    lostngone

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2003
    Location:
    Anchorage
    #1
    "You have the right to bear arms, not “electrical” arms, court declares"

    http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/03/you-have-the-right-to-bear-arms-not-electrical-arms-court-declares/

    "The decision says (PDF) that the US Constitution's framers never envisioned the modern stun-gun device"

    "The Massachusetts case, decided last week, concerned Jaime Caetano, who lives in one of five states making it illegal for private citizens to posses stun guns. She appealed her 2013 conviction, on Second Amendment and self-defense grounds, claiming she had a right to the weapon to protect herself from what she said was an abusive father of her children. The penalty for breaching the law carries up to a 2.5-year maximum jail term. She was caught with the device outside a grocery store after allowing the authorities, who were looking for a shoplifter, to search her purse."

    Well this is interesting?!? The framers of the Constitution didn't envision things like the text messages or the internet. I guess the 1st amendment only applies to spoken word, quill and ink and maybe the hand press..
     
  2. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #2
    I completely agree. If you're going to let people bear arms they should be allowed a taser too.
     
  3. Meister Suspended

    Meister

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2013
    #3
    It appears as if they US has turned from "Land of the free" to "Land of banned".
    How about stop making laws all the time and getting rid of a bunch of them instead.
     
  4. lowendlinux Contributor

    lowendlinux

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2014
    Location:
    North Country (way upstate NY)
    #5
    What a strange differentiation, and lame excuse.
     
  5. thekev macrumors 604

    thekev

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    #6
    That happens too. It just doesn't make headlines.
     
  6. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #7
    A quote from the court in the Ars Technica article ...
    It would seem the court prefers weapons that leave holes in one's body.

    Curious.

    ----------

    You mean like in your country?

    :rolleyes:
     
  7. Meister Suspended

    Meister

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2013
    #8
    No. Obviously not like in Germany. You even quoted the law that bans tasers there.
     
  8. tgara macrumors 6502a

    tgara

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2012
    Location:
    Somewhere in the Delta Quadrant
    #9
    Yes, it appears that way. Stun guns are illegal to possess in Mass. according to the state Court, so go get a real handgun instead. :confused: Apparently they have no problem with that.
     
  9. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #10
    That's the point.

    You complain about restrictions in the U.S., and the implication is that our society (and by extension the people) is flawed because of that.

    I would just like to add that your country, your society (and by extension the people) share that same characteristic you complain about seeing in the U.S.

    It's really just a softball lobbed down the middle, because it invites you to rail about Germany as much as you do the U.S.
     
  10. Meister Suspended

    Meister

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2013
    #11
    I complain about germany, too.
     
  11. snberk103 macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2007
    Location:
    An Island in the Salish Sea
    #12
    A Taser (I would have thought was obvious) is not a gun and not covered by the US Constitution "Right to bear arms" clause. A Taser is a weapon of course - but then so is a hand-grenade. Just because I may choose to call a grenade a "Gun" for marketing reasons doesn't suddenly make a grenade protected by the US Constitution. From Wikipedia: "A firearm is a portable gun, being a barreled weapon that launches one or more projectiles often driven by the action of an explosive force." I'm sure the legal definition is a bit more extensive. But a Taser doesn't really fit in the definition. It may fire projectiles - but that is not critical aspect of the operation. But a hand grenade can be fired as a projectile too. As can a mortar. A Taser is just as effective if you walk up to someone and physically place the electrodes on them and start the mechanism. It is of course better for the operator if they can implant the electrodes from a distance.
     
  12. lostngone thread starter macrumors demi-god

    lostngone

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2003
    Location:
    Anchorage
    #13
    The 2nd Amdentment states "Arms" the framers didn't state what types. They could have easily stated "cannons" or "muskets" but they did not.
    A Taser delivers a projectiles mush in the same way a firearms does but rather then using its volicity and mass to stop you it used an electical charge along thin wires. So the only thing it is missing is a barrel.
     
  13. sostoobad macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2011
    Location:
    Boston
    #14
    This has been my problem with the 2nd amendment, it badly needs to be well amended. To me it is not reasonable to expect people to predict the future. So I read it as, you have the right to bear arms of the day meaning buy all the cannons and muskets you want.

    Any other type of "arm" be it a taser, six shooter or semiautomatic rifle as of now is unconstitutional.

    Thats how I see it, I am surprised the anti gun crowd hasn't gone down this road.
     
  14. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #15
    Do you mean in this thread in particular?

    Because that issue has been addressed many times in the past.
     
  15. ucfgrad93 macrumors P6

    ucfgrad93

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Location:
    Colorado
    #16
    And would you consistently use this same logic concerning the 1st Amendment?
     
  16. Don't panic macrumors 603

    Don't panic

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2004
    Location:
    having a drink at Milliways
    #17

    i think that has to be viewed in term of accountability and responsibility.

    tasers (which in my opinion are basically instrument of torture and should be forbidden tout-court including and especially in the hands of the police) can be and are easily abused, with a high level of impunity.
     
  17. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #18
    Well, by this argument a crossbow and a catapult are a firearms. I'm not sure I buy this argument.

    That said, I'm not sure I buy the judge's argument either. Arms implies weaponry, but we need interpretation to differentiate between smart missiles, phase plasma pulse rifles, RPGs, nukes, knives, and sharp sticks.

    Well, we do limit speech in certain instances. We have time and place restrictions, we have restrictions on public airwaves, and we have libel and slander laws.

    So, it's not too far a step to say that some weapons might be beyond a reasonableness test.
     
  18. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #19
    That was impression that I was getting as well, that the court was afraid that people would start using tasers as torture devices.

    But shouldn't there be some reason to believe that they are being abused that way and therefore require regulation as opposed to merely fearing for the possibility?
     
  19. VulchR macrumors 68020

    VulchR

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Location:
    Scotland
    #20
    I wonder what the Court's position would be on bullets that had capacitors in them to electrically stun the target in addition to causing tissue damage (surprised this is used for hunting....).

    Anyway, this ruling seems weird at best.
     
  20. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #21
    So long as it left a visible mark, they'd probably be cool with it.
     
  21. CalWizrd Suspended

    CalWizrd

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Location:
    NYC/Raleigh, NC
    #22
    The major difference between 1st Amendment restrictions and 2nd Amendment restrictions, in most cases, is that 1st restrictions tend to refer to usage, while 2nd restrictions tend to refer to functionality.

    There don't seem to be 1st Amendment restrictions that take into account the evolution of "how" speech can be delivered now, as opposed to when the Constitution was framed. Many who argue for 2nd Amendment restrictions do just the opposite, and talk about how the framers couldn't have foreseen modern weaponry, and therefore certain functionality should be prohibited.

    Please understand, I am in no way arguing in favor of private ownership of nukes, RPGs, etc., but rather just pointing out the inconsistent comparison of 1st restrictions versus 2nd.
     
  22. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #23
    That's a fair point and I think exists owing to the differences in how the consequences of speech and firearms come across. We can walk back bad acts when it comes to speech; we cannot walk back bad acts when it comes to firearms.

    And, I think that the framers understanding of speech would be altered by learning about the Internet just as it would be changed by their first demonstration of a nuclear weapon.

    Moreover, we see limitations on the 4th, 5th, and 8th amendments.

    It's a fair point, but it goes to show that the comparison between the two are very limited.
     
  23. samiwas macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2006
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    #24
    This is a really, really dumb comparison and I would think that intelligent people wouldn't use it.
     

Share This Page