Bills like this keep coming back.
Can we instead look to pass the opposite? A bill that marks the right to use private encryption as a fundamental right?
Is that kind of thing possible?
Where or how would I support such an activity?
Can we instead look to pass the opposite? A bill that marks the right to use private encryption as a fundamental right?
Is that kind of thing possible?
Where or how would I support such an activity?
1. again, one of their key reasoning points is always that they saw a hollywood movie and they think copy protection circumvention means something else like being a ninja running into a building and quickly killing 3 people with a katana
You could use the same hocus-pocus people use to explain why say a surface to air missile isn't "arms" to explain why encryption isn't "speech", and honestly it'd probably be easier to do with the latter.
I can’t point encryption at you and end your life.
gun:nuke
plaintext:encrypted
If nukes, which are arms, can be banned under 2A -- why can't encrypted speech be banned under the 1A? I mean hell the 1A can even ban materials of 'prurient interest' which as far as I can tell a picture of a naked woman isn't going directly to kill anyone either.
[1] https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/usao-ut/legacy/2...
[2] https://books.google.com/books?id=CmPKNI2z5-AC&q=heller+%22n...
edit to add - per [1] above, 18 USC § 922(k), (o) & (v); 26 USC § 5861 specifically prohibits "KNOWINGLY POSSESS OR MANUFACTURE [...] E. Destructive device" which is defined as:
> A “destructive device” includes any explosive, incendiary or poison gas --- (i)bomb; (ii) grenade or (iii) similar device, or any combination of parts designed or intended to be converted into a destructive device, or from which a destructive device may be readily assembled. Does not include black powder or antique type firearms. 18 USC §921(3).
[1] Is just so bad I'm pretty sure it was written by a drunk child (admittedly the intelligence level of most government employees), I would not trust this document AT ALL. It's egregiously wrong. You can own sawed off shotguns with a tax stamp (in fact it was written in law as a tax because they thought they had no constitutional right to ban them). It also says idiotic things like you can't own a gun without a serial number (WTF, a ton of early 20th century guns don't even have these).
Now I know some of you will say "but notch, if you have to get a stamp it's a privilege not a right." And I'll explain to you why that's wrong. If you're allowed to have it, they have to give you the stamp. If you're not? Oh you're gonna love this -- if you're not THEN THEY CAN'T PROSECUTE YOU FOR NOT HAVING THE STAMP. Self incrimination. That's right, if you're a criminal you don't legally need the stamp! Only law abiding people have to get it, and hey if you don't theyll just make you a felon so you don't have to get it the next time!
It also uses "transported across strate line" to establish federal jurisdiction which is just straight up 100% wrong, it doesn't need to do that as feds will happily prosecute an item even DIY made in the same state (see conviction of kettler). I actually lost track because it seemed like almost everything I read there was wrong. I hope whoever wrote that has a nice job collecting quarters from the parking meters or something now, because I wouldn't trust them with much else.
Note: this is entertainment and not legal advice. Seek a lawyer before acting in your own individual circumstance.
That reads as applying when providing nuclear support to a foreign terrorist power. Technically not incompatible with OP's interpretation, which would presumably be for domestic use.
(c) I would argue, from a strict reading of the constitution, is unconstitutional as it bans mere possession domestically of nukes. I could be misreading that section though. IMO there really should be constitutional amendment of the second to clearly ban nukes and possibly some other WMDs. As a bonus once all that stuff is spelled out it will give a lot less ammunition for people to hold the second amendment hostage by saying "well we have to interpret it creatively because we'll all be living on a radioactive sheet of glass if we don't."
note: entertainment and not legal advice
side note: Domestically people designated to be "terrorists" can legally buy and be sold arms (see the terrorist screening center list and TSC no-fly list, the people on there can buy guns inside the US if not otherwise prohibited persons). That is someone on the terrorist list at the TSC can walk into a gun store and pass the background check no problem, and be sold a gun domestically.
https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/stat...
[0] Unfortunately, only in theory considering how often attacks against that protection are made by US policymakers.
Fundamentally if we're ok with weakening some amendments through interpretation short of constitutional convention we should resign ourselves to the idea that we are weakening all of them.
> (1) First, the Court reviews the standard that the Court’s cases have used to determine whether the Fourteenth Amendment’s reference to “liberty” protects a particular right.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf
Edit: I guess it's actually both.
> Roe held that the abortion right is part of a right to privacy that springs from the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments.
Something like the European Convention on Human Rights, ratified into local law by each country. That would be much harder politically to overturn by the next parliament.
Can't see it happening though.
And if you are not taught law, how can anyone claim to live in a democracy to debate the laws?
Everybody is born into a legal dictatorship if you weren't taught law and with todays communication technology, there is no excuse for it. Its just setting people up to be victims of crime especially kids, its a criminal way to make people dependent on employees of the state who claim to be picking up the pieces.
Secondly employees of the state are treated as superior to members of the public by the courts, which makes me think the legal system isn't fit for purpose here in the UK.
This is why America fought a war of independence against them.
95. It is said that we live in a free society because we have a certain number of constitutionally guaranteed rights. But these are not as important as they seem. The degree of personal freedom that exists in a society is determined more by the economic and technological structure of the society than by its laws or its form of government. [16] Most of the Indian nations of New England were monarchies, and many of the cities of the Italian Renaissance were controlled by dictators. But in reading about these societies one gets the impression that they allowed far more personal freedom than our society does. In part this was because they lacked efficient mechanisms for enforcing the ruler's will: There were no modern, well-organized police forces, no rapid long-distance communications, no surveillance cameras, no dossiers of information about the lives of average citizens. Hence it was relatively easy to evade control.
I mean I discuss the writings of haber creating the haber-basch process too, but I think it'd be weird for people to constantly point out how that's improper to cite a guy who spent much of his time creating and distributing chemical weapons.
Not in the UK because of parliamentry authority, no. A law cannot be made that binds future parliament from being able to undo it, thus 'fundamental rights' cannot be legislated.