The Miller case was decided on the basis that there was no one there to defend Miller. Only the prosecution was there. That's why they say "not within judicial notice" in the decision:
"Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense." (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ getcase.pl? court=us&vol=307&invol=174)
They all knew that sawed-off shotguns were useful in WWI trenches, but judges cannot introduce evidence.
Notice what they said later! --
"These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."
That can be used to support that I have a right to an M-16. But the High Nine have not taken a direct look at the Second Amendment since then. They most certainly have *NOT* "consistently ruled that the Second Amendment does not extend the right to keep and bear arms to individuals." Far from it--they haven't ruled at all since Miller!
Under the Fourteenth Amendment, the rights to free speech, fredom of religion, etc. have all been applied to limit state's authorities. Some day, I hope to see the Second Amendment so protected.
For a more full analysis, read the Emerson decisions: http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/p ub/99/99-103 31-cr0.htm and http://www.saf.org/1999Emersoncas e2amend.html
It's NOT a "settled issue," like the anti-rights people like to claim. Under the 5th Circuit ruling, which applies to *me*--here and now in Texas--the Second Amendment DOES protect an individual right. The Supremes declined to overturn that. So: It's MY RIGHT.
Now, if you were to try to deny me the right to vote, the right to free speech, the right to worship freely, or the right to be free from slavery's chains, then few would say I need to be polite in my response. I'm only polite now because I'm a Christian.
There is a great graphic at Heavens Above that shows the relative positions of the four solar system escapees.
http://www.heavens-above.com/solar-escape.asp
Also, you may want to check Heavens Above to see if the Shuttle/ISS will be visible from your location. At 5:25 AM tomorrow in Santonio they'll be a magnitude -0.3.
The best case is the "great deal just 10 feet away" type of ad. Wouldn't you just LOVE to be able to physically locate a spammer? Just think what some teenagers ould be convinced to do to the offending business for a quick $20...I can hardly wait!
There is a factor you young-uns out there should consider, too, especially you young "hackers": Don't do anything that could screw up your being able to get a security clearance.
If you think it's fun when you do it on the sly, try doing it for real! (Disclaimer: I don't, but I know those who do). Break into things for a living? MONDO fun, and I wish I did that.
Sadly, I gather a good paycheck for trying to design features into the systems to stop them. But that money depends on a clearance, too.
With a clearance, many things become possible that would otherwise land you in jail.
As a computer security professional, I truly believe I cannot trust my digitised signature being held by commercial entities. They have nothing to lose if some miscreant absconds with it and misuses it. How could I prove it's a forgery? I CAN'T!
This is mostly used in the arctic/antarctic regions. Why? Because the ionosphere is not usable there. In the rest of the world, you just bounce off the ionosphere...in the pole regions, you must await the odd meteor.
Errata: I once told a National Security Agency computer science intern about this. A few months later it was on an NSA test she took. Now, THAT'S strange!
If you check the "background" page, you'll see the work is actually done by Secure Computing Corporation (SCC). SCC (http://www.securecomputing.com/) has a STRONG background in making "Trusted Systems." They invented Type Enforcement for the "LoCK" program, which is the basis of the LOCK Secure Server. They really know the business. LOCK is designed to be used to connect classified networks to the internet. You gotta really trust the OS to make the right decisions for the right reasons. It's now old and slow, but it remains trustworthy.
An offshoot of LOCK is the Sidewinder firewall, which the AF picked as the standard firewall to protect all AF bases. (I don't, and haven't worked for SCC, but I did spend a year installing Sidewinders at AF bases.) While some hate it for its relatively slow throughput, I've *never* heard anyone say it was insecure. "Type Domain" security is a series of serious brick walls for an attacker to breach.
Yes, NSA is usually reticent about most things, but not about Computer Security. When I worked at the National Computer Security Center (part of NSA), other NSA entities shunned us because we were so open. Ever heard of the old "Orange Book" and the rest of the "Rainbow Series?" All NSA stuff!
History: NSA had an earlier project to secure Tannebaum's Minix in a similar way. It was targeted at the C2 level. I was saddened when they abandoned that effort.
Now, I look eagerly forward to checking out SCC/NSA's "Secure Linux!"
The ninth and tenth amendments "are too vague and the government can't tell when it is violating them?" You have got to be kidding!
They are as clear as can be -- if the power ain't specifically granted in the Constitution, the Feds don't have it.
The reason it is ignored is the Federal Folk Who Rule want more and more power. So, they just TAKE it.
You do have more than two choices. Vote your conscience (Libertarian, I hope!)
Being a strict Constitutionalist, I view all modifications with a skeptical eye. It took too many years and gang wars to get rid of alcohol prohibition.
SO -- READ it. Comment on it to the "appropriate" folks (as mentioned in an earlier post). And, if a US citizen, write a polite, snail-mail letter to both your senators.
The Orwellian nature of the ever-growing Demuplican/Repocrat party is clearly illustrated.
My condolences.
Both Bush & Gore want CONTROL of your life. Gore wants more & sooner, but that's a difference in degree only. Neither would take seriously their oath to "support and defend the Constitution" and to see that the laws are fairly enforced.
Everyone: READ the Constitution! (It's available at http://lcweb2.loc.gov/const/constquery.html.) Note especially amendments nine and ten:
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain
rights, shall not be construed to deny or
disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States
by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to
the states, are reserved to the states
respectively, or to the people.
The only bit I agree with is the statement: "Just becuase a product MIGHT be abused doesn't mean that it will." This is true for almost anything.
As for your statement on guns: You state that guns kill "about 35,000 each year!" You assume that these are all uncalled-for deaths and that the guns cause them. Some are Police killing a bad guy. Some are folks defending their self/home/shop from bad guys. You fall into the very trap you complain about! You assume ALL uses of the guns are bad and that guns are thus evil.
For the record: The ACLU holds the 2nd Amendment is not an individual right.
The sniffer IS like a gun -- usable by both good guys (your doctor) and bad guys (overzealous government agents). If it's use *must* be regulated, how it should be used, and how it should not be used are all relevant questions we need settled.
-- Those who give up a little safety to secure more liberty deserve both.
Slashdot Mirror
The Miller case was decided on the basis that there was no one there to defend Miller. Only the prosecution was there. That's why they say "not within judicial notice" in the decision:
/ getcase.pl? court=us&vol=307&invol=174)
p ub/99/99-103 31-cr0.htms e2amend.html
"Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense."
(http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts
They all knew that sawed-off shotguns were useful in WWI trenches, but judges cannot introduce evidence.
Notice what they said later! --
"These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."
That can be used to support that I have a right to an M-16. But the High Nine have not taken a direct look at the Second Amendment since then. They most certainly have *NOT* "consistently ruled that the Second Amendment does not extend the right to keep and bear arms to individuals." Far from it--they haven't ruled at all since Miller!
Under the Fourteenth Amendment, the rights to free speech, fredom of religion, etc. have all been applied to limit state's authorities. Some day, I hope to see the Second Amendment so protected.
For a more full analysis, read the Emerson decisions:
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/
and
http://www.saf.org/1999Emersonca
It's NOT a "settled issue," like the anti-rights people like to claim. Under the 5th Circuit ruling, which applies to *me*--here and now in Texas--the Second Amendment DOES protect an individual right. The Supremes declined to overturn that. So: It's MY RIGHT.
Now, if you were to try to deny me the right to vote, the right to free speech, the right to worship freely, or the right to be free from slavery's chains, then few would say I need to be polite in my response. I'm only polite now because I'm a Christian.
Merry CHRISTmas!
To see what it might look like, see a drawing of Archangel Michael, as envisioned by Niven & Pournelle, at
http://www.up-ship.com/apr/michael.htm
This thing is like a battleship -- built to take it and to REALLY dish it out.
I'd go for a ride!
There is a great graphic at Heavens Above that shows the relative positions of the four solar system escapees.
http://www.heavens-above.com/solar-escape.asp
Also, you may want to check Heavens Above to see if the Shuttle/ISS will be visible from your location. At 5:25 AM tomorrow in Santonio they'll be a magnitude -0.3.
The best case is the "great deal just 10 feet away" type of ad. Wouldn't you just LOVE to be able to physically locate a spammer? Just think what some teenagers ould be convinced to do to the offending business for a quick $20...I can hardly wait!
Speaking as a government contractor...Me to!
There is a factor you young-uns out there should consider, too, especially you young "hackers": Don't do anything that could screw up your being able to get a security clearance.
If you think it's fun when you do it on the sly, try doing it for real! (Disclaimer: I don't, but I know those who do). Break into things for a living? MONDO fun, and I wish I did that.
Sadly, I gather a good paycheck for trying to design features into the systems to stop them. But that money depends on a clearance, too.
With a clearance, many things become possible that would otherwise land you in jail.
. . . I will not shop there.
As a computer security professional, I truly believe I cannot trust my digitised signature being held by commercial entities. They have nothing to lose if some miscreant absconds with it and misuses it. How could I prove it's a forgery? I CAN'T!
This is mostly used in the arctic/antarctic regions. Why? Because the ionosphere is not usable there. In the rest of the world, you just bounce off the ionosphere...in the pole regions, you must await the odd meteor.
Errata: I once told a National Security Agency computer science intern about this. A few months later it was on an NSA test she took. Now, THAT'S strange!
If you check the "background" page, you'll see the work is actually done by Secure Computing Corporation (SCC). SCC (http://www.securecomputing.com/) has a STRONG background in making "Trusted Systems." They invented Type Enforcement for the "LoCK" program, which is the basis of the LOCK Secure Server. They really know the business. LOCK is designed to be used to connect classified networks to the internet. You gotta really trust the OS to make the right decisions for the right reasons. It's now old and slow, but it remains trustworthy.
An offshoot of LOCK is the Sidewinder firewall, which the AF picked as the standard firewall to protect all AF bases. (I don't, and haven't worked for SCC, but I did spend a year installing Sidewinders at AF bases.) While some hate it for its relatively slow throughput, I've *never* heard anyone say it was insecure. "Type Domain" security is a series of serious brick walls for an attacker to breach.
Yes, NSA is usually reticent about most things, but not about Computer Security. When I worked at the National Computer Security Center (part of NSA), other NSA entities shunned us because we were so open. Ever heard of the old "Orange Book" and the rest of the "Rainbow Series?" All NSA stuff!
History: NSA had an earlier project to secure Tannebaum's Minix in a similar way. It was targeted at the C2 level. I was saddened when they abandoned that effort.
Now, I look eagerly forward to checking out SCC/NSA's "Secure Linux!"
The ninth and tenth amendments "are too vague and the government can't tell when it is violating them?" You have got to be kidding!
They are as clear as can be -- if the power ain't specifically granted in the Constitution, the Feds don't have it. The reason it is ignored is the Federal Folk Who Rule want more and more power. So, they just TAKE it.
You do have more than two choices. Vote your conscience (Libertarian, I hope!)
QUOTE
The member States of the Council of Europe and the other States signatory hereto,
UNQUOTE
Yes, Virginia, the US *could* join the treaty.
And what's wrong with being a strict Constitutionalist? I believe in ALL of the bill of rights. I would hope most of our fellow geeks do, too!
The point about this being a treaty is critical.
1. It's international.
2. It's a modification to the US Constitution.
Being a strict Constitutionalist, I view all modifications with a skeptical eye. It took too many years and gang wars to get rid of alcohol prohibition.
SO -- READ it. Comment on it to the "appropriate" folks (as mentioned in an earlier post). And, if a US citizen, write a polite, snail-mail letter to both your senators.
My condolences.
Both Bush & Gore want CONTROL of your life. Gore wants more & sooner, but that's a difference in degree only. Neither would take seriously their oath to "support and defend the Constitution" and to see that the laws are fairly enforced.
Everyone: READ the Constitution! (It's available at http://lcweb2.loc.gov/const/constquery.html.) Note especially amendments nine and ten:
The only bit I agree with is the statement: "Just becuase a product MIGHT be abused doesn't mean that it will." This is true for almost anything.
As for your statement on guns: You state that guns kill "about 35,000 each year!" You assume that these are all uncalled-for deaths and that the guns cause them. Some are Police killing a bad guy. Some are folks defending their self/home/shop from bad guys. You fall into the very trap you complain about! You assume ALL uses of the guns are bad and that guns are thus evil.
For the record: The ACLU holds the 2nd Amendment is not an individual right.
The sniffer IS like a gun -- usable by both good guys (your doctor) and bad guys (overzealous government agents). If it's use *must* be regulated, how it should be used, and how it should not be used are all relevant questions we need settled.
-- Those who give up a little safety to secure more liberty deserve both.