Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Texas police invested in phone-tracking software and won’t say how it’s used

texasobserver.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–135 of 135 posts

Re: Texas police invested in phone-tracking software and won’t say how it’s used

#131

Post by Terr_ »

15155 wrote: post #130
Terr_ wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. Who are you trying to fool?

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.

The A is over 250 years old, RTFA already.

Re: Texas police invested in phone-tracking software and won’t say how it’s used

#132

Post by Terr_ »

potato3732842 wrote: post #119
Terr_ wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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).

> they implicitly expect

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.)

Re: Texas police invested in phone-tracking software and won’t say how it’s used

#134

Post by esseph »

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #122
esseph wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yours goes to the Texas Army National Guard page. Mine goes to the TXSG (Texas State Guard)

The root subdomain is for the Texas state guard…

Tmd = Texas Military Department

Re: Texas police invested in phone-tracking software and won’t say how it’s used

#135

Post by thephyber »

15155 wrote: post #128
thephyber wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tanks for all! /s 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 i…

> Tanks for all! "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…

> 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.

[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/05/john-paul-...

Post reply on HN