SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the founding-fathers-didn't-have-tazers dept.
Massachusetts' ban on the private possession of stun guns—an "electrical weapon" under the statute—does not violate the Second Amendment right to bear arms, the state's top court has ruled.
The decision says ( http://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/stungunMA-ruling.pdf ) (PDF) that the US Constitution's framers never envisioned the modern stun-gun device, first patented in 1972. The top court said stun guns are not suitable for military use, and that it did not matter whether state lawmakers have approved the possession of handguns outside the home.The court, ruling in the case of a Massachusetts woman caught with stun gun, said the stun gun is a "thoroughly modern invention" not protected by the Second Amendment, although handguns are protected.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 10 2015, @02:20PM
I can think of several parallels in military service. Dazzle, or flash bangs for example. It is highly unlikely that off the shelf stun guns or tazers haven't been used in snatch operations by military persons on at least a few occasions. Even more likely if you include paramilitary organizations. Not all military endeavors are lethal.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 10 2015, @03:47PM
Those are concussion grenades, FYI, not "electrical weapons".