Re:Email privacy bill unanimously passes U.S. House
by bitwize on Thursday April 28, 2016 @08:42AM
(#11588347)
But the Constitution contains no qualification on the right to bear arms. It just says that right shall not be infringed. As long as that's standing law, any judge with a 2A case before them is going to look at the text of the Constitution and the Heller decision and rule that the Constitution protects an unqualified right to keep and bear arms. And anti-gun politicians are not going to get the Australia style total bans and confiscation sweeps they've been hoping for. The most they'll get is bikeshedding about the definition of an "assault weapon" and the like.
If what you say is true, and the militia is of no concern to us today, it should be easy enough to get an amendment passed that removes or curtails the right unconditionally protected by the 2A. It could even just be put out there and float around for as long as it takes the states to ratify it, like the 27th amendment did for centuries.
The process is there for a reason.
Re:Email privacy bill unanimously passes U.S. House
by randallsquared on Thursday April 28, 2016 @07:55AM
(#11588097)
> It also uses the need of a militia as the _justification_ for that right.
If you believe the comments and the code are out of sync, change one. There's a patch procedure built in. Changing the interpreter to make the output match what you think the comment is saying while leaving the actual instructions intact just increases (tech / legal) debt.
Re:Email privacy bill unanimously passes U.S. House
by coldtea on Thursday April 28, 2016 @08:15AM
(#11588204)
My point exactly.
Re:Email privacy bill unanimously passes U.S. House
by Zigurd on Friday April 29, 2016 @10:14AM
(#11595820)
The concepts behind "well regulated militia" are still used to formulate regulations on weapons. In general, it's legal to buy the same gear infantrymen use. Scary black guns with ridiculous rails and accessories, knock yourself out. Sawed off shotguns, not so much.
It doesn't just state that the right to bear arms is a prerequisite for a well-regulated militia.
It also uses the need of a militia as the _justification_ for that right.
It says: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
This means that the right to bear arms is not an end in itself -- it's justified in as much as it's a first step to a well-regulated militia.
In an era without well-regulated citizen militias (except the National Guard, for which different guard laws apply anyway), there's no reason to hold the right to keep arms anymore.
So, yes, arms are a prerequisite to such militias -- but (the arms) are only asked to be respected as a right precisely because they are such a prerequisite -- and not for another reason.
Which makes the justification for guns and militias reciprocal. Without militias, and no role for them, no reason for the former either.
>But the Constitution is what it is, and if we don't like it we change it. If the government can get away with ignoring the Second Amendment and deciding it's no longer relevant, think of what they might do to the First Amendment. Or the Fourth. Or the Fifth. Or the Eighth. Or the Thirteenth.
I find keeping the "right to bear arms" in an era for which the justification for doing so given in the Constitution has expired, as the government already violating the spirit of the 2nd Amendment (to favor gun lobbies and such).
E.g. that reading of the 2A is a selective reading that upholds the letter while violating the spirit of it, from politically appointed and non impartial judges.