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: 3, Informative) by Zinho on Tuesday March 10 2015, @03:29PM
I think the judges have a poor understanding of how these things work given this quote:
It is difficult to detect clear signs of use and misuse of stun guns, unlike handguns. Stun guns can deliver repeated or prolonged shocks without leaving marks.
-emphasis added
Seriously, have they never been briefed on how a Taser operates? There are barbs that penetrate the skin! How is that not going to leave a mark? Even the non-barbed stun guns leave burn marks; how could they not at 50,000V? Hey, judge, let me google that for you. [lmgtfy.com]
"Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin