Slashdot Mirror

http://www.mcsm.org/kennesaw.html/
Kennesaw, Georgia I think is the oldest continuous one. I'm searching for the one I just read about passing a week or three back...

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/16/opinion/16reynol ds.html?ex=1326603600&en=3b3fcfadc7e7f096&ei=5088& partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
Greenleaf, Idaho (may require registration or BugMeNot)

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_4 80913.html
proposed in Cherry Tree, PA

On top of it, they never mention how US military overseas from Florida specifically (that overwhelmingly vote republican) didn't get their absentee ballots

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTI CLE_ID=15597
http://www.thegreenpapers.com/News/20001128-1.html
http://www.cwv.org/milvote/milvote.htm
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1 1/20/military.ballots/index.html
http://www.uhuh.com/laws/milivote.htm
http://www.aim.org/media_monitor/A2901_0_2_0_C/
http://www.mcsm.org/vetsvote.html

I beg to differ, as would the citizens of a town where gun ownership was mandated.

http://www.mcsm.org/kennesaw.html
http://www.kennesaw.ga.us/index.asp?NID=137
http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/2nd_Amend/crime_rate _plummets.htm

If you're really interested, check out the links before this gets modded off-topic (which it really is, but I couldn't stop myself).

From 1989 up to and including 1996, the year when the Australian government confiscated and destroyed the 640,000 semi automatic rifles and shotguns taken from law abiding citizens, the murder rate in Australia, defined as the number of murders per 100,000 residents, remained relatively flat, fluctuating between 1.9 and 2.0. In 1995, the year before the confiscation, the murder rate was 1.9. In 1996, the year when 35 people were gunned down by a mad man in Port Arthur thus prompting the gun confiscation, the murder rate was 2.0. In 1997, immediately after the massive destruction of firearms, the murder rate dropped to 1.7, a 15% reduction at best. Not bad for the first year, but what happened in the next three years? In 1998, murder rate stayed at 1.7, in 1999 murder rate crept up to 1.8, and in 2000, it remained at 1.8.

So four years after confiscating over $100,000,000 of property from honest Australian citizens, Australia's murder rate dropped at most 10%. Note that during most of the 1990's, their murder rate fluctuated about 5% anyway. Their murder rate was 1.9 the year before the confiscation, five years later, it was 1.8. Accounting for normal statistical fluctuations, gun control had at best a marginal impact on murder rates in Australia.

That's right, gun control works. Australia is a very safe place to live, now that crimes like armed robbery are more common than before the 1996 ban/confiscation took effect. You sound brainwashed to me.

Blame the puffy, middle aged guys named Chuck who think that the right to own firearms is the only civil libery that matters, since it's the only civil liberty you can use to make an exciting loud noise and put holes in cans.

For the most part, I agree with you, but not with this crack about firearms. If you where trolling, or being sarcastic, I'll bite regardless.

It may be the only civil liberty that matters, because as armed citizens, it allows us to preserve all the other civil liberties. The world, or our nation, is not so utopian, so full of people looking out only for their brethen, so lacking in criminals, as to allow us to disarm ourselves.
Criminals prowl our streets. But they do so with far less frequency in areas where even a 20th of the population is likely to be armed (florida-they still go after tourists- Vermont, New Hampshire, or, for the Europeans out there, switzerland.) The police have no obligation to protect you (see Riss vs. New York City)so you must protect yourself. The surest way to do that is to own a firearm, and know how to use it.

Our government is infringing on our rights more each day- being a low user number slashdotter, I'm sure you've been reading about the DMCA and it's ilk for quite some time. How long before our own government becomes as oppressive as Great Brittain was originally? Betcha it'll be a lot longer- if ever- as long as the populace is well armed. Incidentally, the United Kingdom now has the strictest gun control laws in Europe- and the highest violent, confrontational crime rate. (Google cache of Boston Globe)

Gun Restricting laws protect no one but criminals, because only honest people obey them. If someone is willing to ignore laws about theft, rape, and murder, what makes you think they'll obey gun laws?

The right to live includes the right to defend one's life effectively. This was once best done with a spear, then a sword, then a musket, now a handgun. The right to defend our lives against the lawless, and ourselves against tyranny, ensures all other rights. Without the natural right (listed, not given by the 2nd Amendment) to arms, all your other rights are disposable at the conveinance of criminals or the ruling class.
Karma to Burn, do your worst moderators

How is gun control racist? No AC replies please.

I think, what obviously follows from this is that the DMCA only applies to circumvention devices that are sold ("commerce"), and not to those given away for free.

Well, the criminal remedies are limited to cases where there is financial gain involved, but the civil remedies have no such clause. I wasn't aware of the pretense of interstate commerce which was given when the issue was raised, and I'm not sure how much that means legally at this point.

Please explain how US law applies to an international situation?

First of all, the constitutionality is clear. "To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes". As for the jurisdictional issue, that is something specific to the Sklyarov case, and its outcome really doesn't affect anyone else. With that said, I believe they have jurisdiction because the items were sold through a U.S. distributor to U.S. citizens living in the U.S. I think your analogy is missing the "living in the U.S." part. I think a closer analogy (jurisdiction wise only) would be a Mexican drug kingpin who ships drugs into the U.S. IANAL, but I'm pretty sure the jurisdictional question there is clear, assuming the facts which are given are proven.

Hey, DeCSS is not even sold, so how can it be commerce? Much less interstate commerce...

I don't believe that the courts care about whether money changes hands when they determine if something is commerce, and on that point I agree with them. As for interstate commerce, the supreme court has repeatedly held that intrastate commerce may be regulated by congress because it affects interstate commerce. On this point I vehemently disagree, but that's where the precedent currently lies. Consider the recent supreme court ruling regarding medical marijuana in California. The supreme court decided not to rule on the constiutionality of the specific issue of whether it fell under interstate commerce, but they relied on past precedent for that decision. As for DeCSS not being interstate, it clearly was because there wasn't even an attempt at restricting download to within the state. Where the product was made and whether it is legal where it was made is likewise a non-issue. You can buy marijuana in Amsterdam, but assuming you are somehow able to smuggle it back over here that doesn't give you the legal right to sell it once you get here.

There is no fair-use exception in the DMCA...

Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title.

Perhaps you know more about what exactly that sentence was supposed to mean. I never followed or heard about the intent of congress when they were first drafting the DMCA. But I took that sentence to mean that there is a DMCA exemption for fair use. Do you read it a different way?

There is no exception for circumventing access protections of old works.

No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.

I guess you could argue that an expired copyrighted work is a work protected under title 17 (Copyrights), but I read this as only applying to works which are at the time of infringement protected under copyright law.

It actively hampers the progress of science (Felten, Sklyarov, etc).

AFAIK charges were never brought against Felton under the DMCA. I don't think they could have been won if they had. Selling E-book cracking software in binary form did very little to promote the progress of science (arguably it helped gain access to scientific works, but so would breaking copyright law). DeCSS arguably did promote the progress of science, and I'd certainly argue that it falls under the first ammendment. Now two issues come up. First of all, is the DMCA copyright law or is it commerce law, or is it both (and if both which parts are which). Secondly, is there a fair use exception in the DMCA. I believe there is, which means you might be able to get away with DeCSS but ultimately you can't make the law itself unconstitutional. For all practical purposes though, if the DMCA is ruled unconstitutional because there is no fair use exception, congress can simply add a fair use exception and pass it once again. I guess the hope is that we can convince congress by then that the DMCA is a bad law in the first place.

Actually the best possible outcome would be for the supreme court to start enforcing the interstate commerce clause. The federal government has no business controlling the actions of individuals which take place solely within the state, unless those actions infringe upon the basic rights we are given under the constitution.

In my 'revisionist' view, the Federal Government's authority under the Commerce Clause, which merely allocates to Congress the power 'to regulate Commerce...among the several states,' does not extend to the regulation of wholly intrastate, point of sale transactions. - Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas