Governors, The Protecting People from Explosives Amendment has passed the senate

[bore]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

lol ... just what we were missing in our constitutional jurisprudence: more debates about the meaning of 18th century words.

[windjammer]

lol ... just what we were missing in our constitutional jurisprudence: more debates about the meaning of 18th century words.

You prefer the current version maybe?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

lol ... just what we were missing in our constitutional jurisprudence: more debates about the meaning of 18th century words.

You prefer the current version maybe?

I'm not sure. I guess having militias might be fun.

[windjammer]

lol ... just what we were missing in our constitutional jurisprudence: more debates about the meaning of 18th century words.

You prefer the current version maybe?

I'm not sure. I guess having militias might be fun.

A well regulated militia.

Still better than letting people wearing dynamites and grenades on them.

[Lincoln Republican]

What kind of a moronic legislative body or constitutional assembly would authorize citizens to possess low potency explosives or any explosives, in the first place?

Like guns, they need to be highly regulated and controlled.

[Simfan34]

I thought Atlasia was a rather left-wing place, so I'm confused why this is taking as much effort as it is.

I obviously support the existence of "well-regulated" (i.e., regional) militias, however.

[bore]

I thought Atlasia was a rather left-wing place, so I'm confused why this is taking as much effort as it is.

I obviously support the existence of "well-regulated" (i.e., regional) militias, however.

You need 7 pro gun control votes, and that's almost always unfeasible. If JCL had read the amendment properly even this wouldn't have passed...

[windjammer]

What a misleading title - I can't believe the Senate got away with passing it like this...

This isn't just banning explosives, it's restricting the ability to own guns. It's a shame you had to use trickery to try and get this passed.

This is the right of people to wear grenades and dynamites I want to get rid of the constitution because this is basically what our current constitution allows. Promoting the  US 2nd amendment right is hardly a  gun control measure.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Is this really that restrictive?  I don't know why we would assume that explosives would not be covered under the "arms" which people have a right to hold to defend their freedoms. The language of this amendment makes no sense if the people's militias are not able to hold their own against the regular standing army.

I read this amendment as protecting the people from the explosives of their government by allowing them an effective defense against it.

[windjammer]

Is this really that restrictive?  I don't know why we would assume that explosives would not be covered under the "arms" which people have a right to hold to defend their freedoms. The language of this amendment makes no sense if the people's militias are not able to hold their own against the regular standing army.

I read this amendment as protecting the people from the explosives of their government by allowing them an effective defense against it.

"The right to keep and bear fire-arms and low-potency explosives shall not be infringed."

I don't see how it couldn't be interpreted as an amendment protecting people  wearing grenades etc,...

And furthermore, considering there is basically no definition of what is "low", I believe everyone can argue that dynamite is low.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

What kind of a moronic legislative body or constitutional assembly would authorize citizens to possess low potency explosives or any explosives, in the first place?

Like guns, they need to be highly regulated and controlled.

One composed of Jedi, Pbrunsel, King, Colin and a couple of others way back in 2005. It was a fun read.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Is this really that restrictive?  I don't know why we would assume that explosives would not be covered under the "arms" which people have a right to hold to defend their freedoms. The language of this amendment makes no sense if the people's militias are not able to hold their own against the regular standing army.

I read this amendment as protecting the people from the explosives of their government by allowing them an effective defense against it.

"The right to keep and bear fire-arms and low-potency explosives shall not be infringed."

I don't see how it couldn't be interpreted as an amendment protecting people  wearing grenades etc,...

And furthermore, considering there is basically no definition of what is "low", I believe everyone can argue that dynamite is low.

Are not dynamite and grenades "arms" also, and thus exist within the category protected from infringement under the amendment being voted on?  If the Constitution as written does not allow for the banning of grenades, then neither does this amendment being voted on allow for their banning either.

[windjammer]

Grenade and dynamite are explosives.

[Donerail]

And furthermore, considering there is basically no definition of what is "low", I believe everyone can argue that dynamite is low.

Not at all. High-potency explosives are ones where the reaction travels through the explosive at faster than the speed of sound - dynamite and TNT fall in this category. Low-potency explosives would be ones where the reaction wave moves at subsonic speeds, like black powder or other fireworks. That's seemingly the most logical way to differentiate between high-potency and low-potency explosives. There is nothing in the Constitution that can be construed to allow you to "wear dynamite", whatever the hell that means.

[windjammer]

And furthermore, considering there is basically no definition of what is "low", I believe everyone can argue that dynamite is low.

Not at all. High-potency explosives are ones where the reaction travels through the explosive at faster than the speed of sound - dynamite and TNT fall in this category. Low-potency explosives would be ones where the reaction wave moves at subsonic speeds, like black powder or other fireworks. That's seemingly the most logical way to differentiate between high-potency and low-potency explosives. There is nothing in the Constitution that can be construed to allow you to "wear dynamite", whatever the hell that means.

Sjoyce, there is no definition of "low potency" explosives. So I believe it allows every explosive because you can argue this is "low" for everything, considering there is no definitionN.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Grenade and dynamite are explosives.

Yes, and they are also arms.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I fear shua may be right, as is usually the case (typically).


The solution being sold to this "problem" does not fix said "problem".

[windjammer]

Grenade and dynamite are explosives.

Yes, and they are also arms.

No

I fear shua may be right, as is usually the case (typically).


The solution being sold to this "problem" does not fix said "problem".

He isn't.


Oh and, with the current constitution, there is absolutely no regulation possible. "it shall not be infriged". I believe that a prisoner can require to keep his weapon in jail for instance.  With the US 2nd amendment right, while it protects the right of bearing weapons, there is still this notion of "regulation": so I believe with the US second amendment, prisoners can't require to keep their guns in jail for instance.

I'm not a fan of the US Second amendment right, but it is still less weird than the current version of the constitution.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The Transcendental Democrats deplore the disgraceful means by which this measure passed the Senate.

[Donerail]

Oh and, with the current constitution, there is absolutely no regulation possible. "it shall not be infriged". I believe that a prisoner can require to keep his weapon in jail for instance.  With the US 2nd amendment right, while it protects the right of bearing weapons, there is still this notion of "regulation": so I believe with the US second amendment, prisoners can't require to keep their guns in jail for instance.

Could you explain the meaning of the clause in the Constitution which states "The Atlasian government shall not deprive any citizen of ... liberty ... without due process"? Does not that clause mean we can deprive citizens of the liberties they enjoy under the Constitution, including the right to bear arms, through the judicial process?

Sjoyce, there is no definition of "low potency" explosives. So I believe it allows every explosive because you can argue this is "low" for everything, considering there is no definitionN.

Courts can define it and their precedent will set a precise definition for our system. That's how a common law system works.

[windjammer]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

"the right to bear an arm shall not be infringed": you can NEVER take the gun of someone in any case.
If a judge wants to take the gun of a prisoner, he couldn't because that would infringe this right.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You're speaking about the current US system? Do you realize the current Supreme Court is full of crazy people like Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas? I prefer not to put that in the constitutioin, because this is a utopy to think judges are fair in their judgement, they are appointed after a decision made by politicians who are EXTREMELY under lobby influence, so potentially a lobby of dynamite could rise etc.

[Donerail]

"the right to bear an arm shall not be infringed": you can NEVER take the gun of someone in any case.
If a judge wants to take the gun of a prisoner, he couldn't because that would infringe this right.

There's dozens of states where convicted felons cannot own weapons even after they're released from prisons. You can absolutely lose a right even if it's guaranteed in the Constitution so long as its removal is conducted through due process and I don't see how you can interpret it differently.

You're speaking about the current US system? Do you realize the current Supreme Court is full of crazy people like Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas? I prefer not to put that in the constitutioin, because this is a utopy to think judges are fair in their judgement, they are appointed after a decision made by politicians who are EXTREMELY under lobby influence, so potentially a lobby of dynamite could rise etc.

I'm speaking about either the current US system or Atlasia's, doesn't matter. No judge is stupid enough to say that any part of the law implies that prisoners can bear arms. Neither Antonin Scalia nor Clarence Thomas - nor any other politician or public servant - want a society where prisons are controlled by armed prisoners. The idea that it's a realistic possibility that a 'lobby of dynamite' might influence judges to declare that convicted felons can carry grenades while serving their sentences is either deliberately disingenuous or mind-numbingly dense. Your amendment tries to resolve a problem that has never existed, does not exist, and will never become a problem by adding more language that does nothing other than make the Constitution a muddled mess to a clause that has not been an obstacle to major gun control in the past. There's neither concrete need nor coherent rationale for it and as such it's a useless piece of law.

[windjammer]

"the right to bear an arm shall not be infringed": you can NEVER take the gun of someone in any case.
If a judge wants to take the gun of a prisoner, he couldn't because that would infringe this right.

There's dozens of states where convicted felons cannot own weapons even after they're released from prisons. You can absolutely lose a right even if it's guaranteed in the Constitution so long as its removal is conducted through due process and I don't see how you can interpret it differently.

You're speaking about the current US system? Do you realize the current Supreme Court is full of crazy people like Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas? I prefer not to put that in the constitutioin, because this is a utopy to think judges are fair in their judgement, they are appointed after a decision made by politicians who are EXTREMELY under lobby influence, so potentially a lobby of dynamite could rise etc.

I'm speaking about either the current US system or Atlasia's, doesn't matter. No judge is stupid enough to say that any part of the law implies that prisoners can bear arms. Neither Antonin Scalia nor Clarence Thomas - nor any other politician or public servant - want a society where prisons are controlled by armed prisoners. The idea that it's a realistic possibility that a 'lobby of dynamite' might influence judges to declare that convicted felons can carry grenades while serving their sentences is either deliberately disingenuous or mind-numbingly dense. Your amendment tries to resolve a problem that has never existed, does not exist, and will never become a problem by adding more language that does nothing other than make the Constitution a muddled mess to a clause that has not been an obstacle to major gun control in the past. There's neither concrete need nor coherent rationale for it and as such it's a useless piece of law.

No one tried to overturn this law. I'm sure if someone did, because of how the current amendment is written, it could strike down this law. It hasn't been an obstacle because no one tried to use that as an obstacle.

I'm speaking about wearing dynamites and grenades freely. Not necessary a felon, and that would be dangerous.
There is a lobby for guns, so why not a lobby for grenades and dynamite too?

Post Scriptum: the example with the convinced felons is with the US 2nd amendment right, not the current atlasian version.

[windjammer]

Ratified by the Pacific