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: 2) by cmn32480 on Tuesday March 10 2015, @02:48PM
Caveats:
1) The current law requires that transferable Actual Machine Guns were made before May 19, 1986. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act [wikipedia.org] - See the section on Registration, Purchases, Taxes, and Transfers) The guns sell in price exponentially higher than their original sale value because of this.
2) They must be legal in the state where you live.
"It's a dog eat dog world, and I'm wearing Milkbone underwear" - Norm Peterson