Yeah seems like that's quite explicitly the goal. The question is, what means or method are they trying to hide and is it hyper illegal or just something they don't want to be pubic knowledge?
Thinking on it, I suspect it's a case of a larger number of smaller techniques. Cops aren't very good at keeping secrets so it can't be something that is widely pervasive, but every department has their stupid little trick
It’s all about delivery. Cops don’t deal with it directly. Their department does through a vendor on a branded portal where they upload information and it does its thing.
It’s no different than any investigative portal they use in their eyes.
It turns out it's actually fine if your data is on offer to the government from a third party.
The Constitution was meant to be permanently fixed and extremely literal about only the technology available from centuries ago, it was not meant to describe general concepts nor intended to be updated to ensure those same rights are retained along with changes in society.
>The Constitution was meant to be permanently fixed and extremely literal about only the technology available from centuries ago, it was not meant to describe general concepts nor intended to be updated to ensure those same rights are retained along with changes in society.
/s?
I can't tell because people unironically use the same reasoning to make the "2nd amendment only apply to muskets" argument.
That isn't the muskets version of that argument I have heard.
The version I've heard is that the firearm technology when the second amendment was ratified was very different than today and that makes it worth evaluating if we want to amend it again.
Similarly the military landscape looks very different as well such that there's a very different risk of foreign armies taking ground and citizens everywhere needing to be ready to hold ground until the more official military forces can arrive.
If we want to get really pedantic about 2A where are the well regulated militias?
Even if someone really is saying the thing you're claiming, 2A doesn't mention muskets at all or any other specific technology so that would be a really dumb thing for those people to say.
The founding fathers denied the right to bare arms to Catholics (and I’d wager lots of other religions), Native Americans, slaves (unless their owners explicitly allowed them), and we inherited English Common Law which limited carrying guns in populated areas.
Until Heller in ~2008, the right to bare arms (as a national right) was widely agreed to mean a collective right (eg. The militias), not an individual right.
We are in a weird place at this moment where the tide turned and lots of jurisprudence is being switched. Also, with ICE / DHS acting as unprofessional as they are, I wouldn’t be surprised to see lots of Dems advocate for more individual gun rights.
"Tanks" as a vehicle aren't regulated whatsoever - their main cannon is a destructive device which carries its own set of regulations, but you can absolutely own a tank (sans main gun) with zero paperwork.
Privateers sunk over 600 British vessels during the Revolution - do you think they needed permits for their cannonry? Or that the Founders somehow didn't know this was happening?
> Until Heller in ~2008, the right to bare arms (as a national right) was widely agreed to mean a collective right (eg. The militias), not an individual right.
Tell me what United States v Miller was about then?
Why do the Federalist papers disagree with everything you are saying, repeatedly?
> we inherited English Common Law which limited carrying guns in populated areas.
Federalist #46:
"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it."
This "collective right" idea is completely bogus and flies in the face of countless historical writings, accounts, etc. The jurisprudence on this issue is long-settled, and who are you to disagree with a majority of Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States?
> The jurisprudence on this issue is long-settled, and who are you to disagree with a majority of Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States?
It was settled for the first time with Heller in 2008, which was not long ago. That SCOTUS decision was supposedly the first to affirm that there was an individual right to carry (not as part of a militia).
Your quote from Federalist 46 doesn’t disprove what I said.
And the Heller decision was 5-4 with one of the dissenting justices claiming it was such a terrible ruling that there should be a constitutional amendment to fix it[1].
You might want to spend some more time with an open mind. You seem extremely confident, but your facts don’t back up such confidence.
When the second amendment was passed, a "well-regulated militia" was already a thing people did, required and defined by the Articles of Confederation.
On one hand, it was controlled by the state, which also had to supply materiel, and not just random citizens making a group. Upper ranks could only be appointed by the state legislatures.
On the other hand, the weaponry the militia was expected to use included horse-drawn cannons, much more than just "home defense" handheld stuff.
P.S.: In other words, the second amendment was designed purely to block the new federal government from disarming the states. I assert that any "Originalist" saying otherwise is actually betraying their claimed philosophy.
If it never created a private right before, then it was wrongly "incorporated" by Supreme Court doctrine, and States ought to be free to set their own gun policies.
Meanwhile privateers sunk or captured 2200+ British ships during the Revolution - I'm sure this was all "organized" militia and every one of those cannons had a permit and taxes paid.
LOL, nobody even considered naval ships to overlap with "the militia" in the first place. You're trying to sneak in some bizarre personal redefinition, like trying to claim your shoes are "vehicles" because they help you get places.
The Articles of Confederation ("Constitution 1.0")--the thing I explicitly showcased, the first thing that "united the states" for over a decade before they wrote a sequel--clearly distinguishes between ships and militia as separate categories.
I'd argue the modern equivalent would be anything you can mount/move with a pick up or a trailer. So a machine-gun, but not a howitzer.
Either way, those "field pieces" were the property of the state, that it was expected to supply by the AoC treaty, rather than something individuals were expected to bring along.
Was... was that nonsense supposed to be some kind of "gotcha"?
Giving the federal government the option to deputize individuals as international agents does not even remotely suggest that States were agreeing to completely abolish all their local gun-laws for all time.
That's like claiming the permission to establish a national postal service somehow bars States from having DUI laws, because any drunkard could maybe suddenly be hired as a postman.
The point is that they implicitly expect private entities/individuals to be able to own and deploy "go toe to toe with the the state equivilent" quality units (though I don't think they expected the same quantity at that quality).
Sure, but crucially "expect some" is not "expect all". The presence of some X is not the same as absolutely zero limitations on X.
Suppose the Federal government chooses to award a letter of Marque and Reprisal to... Bob. However, Bob is in State prison for life, because he was convicted of multiple murders, boat-theft, ramming boats into other boats, selling guns for drugs, whatever.
This sets up a State/Federal conflict, with four major types of resolution:
1. [Specific, State] The Federal government chose a useless agent, but that's their problem for making a stupid choice instead of picking someone not in prison who can wave a gun around and do the job they want done.
2. [Specific, Federal] A lawsuit occurs and it is decided the State has to specifically release Bob from prison and wave a gun around as long as he has that special Federal status.
3. [General, State] The Federal government loses all ability to deputize people because that could potentially cause a conflict.
[General, Federal] The State government loses all ability to imprison anyone or control anybody's gun-waving, because that could potentially cause a conflict.
Surely you'd agree that #4 (and #3) would be insane? Nobody drafted or ratified that M&R clause thinking that they agreed to nullify their State's ability to imprison, nor that the M&R clause itself would be dead on arrival. (Aside, #2 is problematic since it would give Congress a secret pardoning power even more-powerful than the President's.)
> though I don't think they expected the same quantity at that quality
Privateers sunk or captured literally thousands of ships during the Revolution, and were documented to be far more effective than the Continental Navy. The Founders knew this: they were there.
I believe the argument is that in order to have the Letters of Marque be useful, it must have been the case that captains had these types of weapons.
So, to fit it into your analogy, I think it is more like the permission to establish a national postal service implies that the government in the past had not outlawed literacy. There is no need for the government to provide services where the only possible users are already breaking the law.
That said I’m not actually sure I believe this because ships have always been a bit weird legally, going about in international waters far away from any law enforcement… it wouldn’t surprise me if there was some specific cut out for weapons that were only to be used at sea or something…
> it must have been the case that captains had these types of weapons.
Some did, but that doesn't mean states couldn't (or didn't) have laws touching on it.
Similarly, I own and use a car today... but that doesn't mean "the state can't have safety requirements for vehicles", nor does it mean "the state can't bar a legally-blind 20-time DUI convict from driving."
> your analogy
I have a much better/closer one to offer. Consider that tomorrow the Federal legislature could grant a letter of Marque and Reprisal to someone who... Is a convicted murderer held on (state) death-row.
Does that possible wrinkle mean the original Constitution actually banned States from running their own prison systems all along? Does it mean only the federal government is allowed to sentence anybody to carceral punishment?
Obviously not, that'd be an insane conclusion... Yet the only difference here which realm of state law was "getting in the way." If a state can't have gun control because of an M&R letter, then it can't have prisons either.
>The version I've heard is that the firearm technology when the second amendment was ratified was very different than today and that makes it worth evaluating if we want to amend it again.
That's an even worse argument because it's seemingly trying to both to do an motte-and-bailey and strawman at the same time. The motte and bailey comes from seemingly trying to present as sympathetic of an argument as possible. I mean, who's against reevaluating old laws? Strawman comes from the fact that from all the 2nd amendment supporters I've heard, nobody thinks it should be kept because we shouldn't be second-guessing the founding fathers or whatever. All their arguments are based on how guns aren't that dangerous, or how it serves some sort of practical purpose, like preventing state oppression or whatever. Whatever these arguments actually hold is another matter, of course, but at least "the 2nd amendment only applies to muskets" argument doesn't rely on a misrepresentation of the 2nd amendment proponents' views.
;) they are NOT the National Guard. They are the militia of Texas. (Texas State Guard aka TXSG). Subordinate to the state gov, only.
However TX considers it more complicated than that:
The Organized Militia: Consisting of the Texas Army National Guard, the Texas Air National Guard, and the Texas State Guard.
The Unorganized Militia: This consists of all "able-bodied" residents of the state who are at least 18 but under 45 years of age and are not members of the organized militia.
They keep getting arrested because some fed informants show up and convince them to kidnap a governor of whatever before they can become "Well regulated".
This is really strong passive voice. I have to wonder if they were actually on track towards the "well regulated" part if some feds were able to convince them to kidnap a governor.
It was mostly a joke, since these sorts of groups have always, like going back 40+yr, been magnets for law enforcement who always seem to push them to do illegal things.
Second, the incident I'm referencing is well documented. You should look it up. It's basically the "feds radicalize then arrest muslim man, pat themselves on back for catching terrorist" playbook but for white people.
Yes, /s, they're advocating for it to be more of a work-in-progress document, and not considered something final in its current state.
The last pull request got accepted into main in 1992 after being stuck in the per review stage for no less than 202 years. The latest one out of 4 that still remain open ("no child labour") celebrated its 100th year anniversary 18 months ago because for some reason 15 states rejected to approve it and 2 of the states haven't even bothered to address it. 12 of the 28 that gave their approval also rejected it initially but then changed their opinion down the line.
There's definitely an argument to be made here, though.
I think everyone can agree that if the founding fathers knew about modern warfare they would probably feel different about a variety of things. Or, at least, consider them more carefully.
