SoylentNews

You Have the Right to Bear Arms, Not “Electrical” Arms, Court Declares

posted by janrinok on Tuesday March 10 2015, @11:28AM   
from the founding-fathers-didn't-have-tazers dept.

AnonTechie writes:

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.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/03/you-have-the-right-to-bear-arms-not-electrical-arms-court-declares/

• Re:Filter error: Please enter a Subject. (Score: 2) by linuxrocks123 on Tuesday March 10 2015, @04:23PM

  by linuxrocks123 (2557) on Tuesday March 10 2015, @04:23PM (#155497) Journal

  Very good point. I'd like to point out as well that Massachusetts is the state behind Commonwealth v. Gelfgatt [privacyandsecuritymatters.com], a decision which, contrary to federal Eleventh Circuit precedent, ruled that it's not a violation of the 5th Amendment to force someone to reveal disk encryption keys.

  Now, Massachusetts isn't in the Eleventh Circuit, so it's fine for them to rule a different way since the Supreme Court hasn't spoken. But the Eleventh Circuit decision -- correctly cited by the dissenters -- should have been at least persuasive, especially given the merits of the arguments. The Eleventh Circuit argument was "a memorized encryption key is like a memorized safe combination, not like a physical key, and Supreme Court precedent is that memorized safe combinations cannot be compelled", while the argument of the majority was basically, "computers are different, so we can do what we want". Common law says you're supposed to try to follow precedent and not "break new ground" unless you really have to.

  Based on these two cases, it would seem Massachusetts is prone to "computers-are-different-so-we-can-do-what-we-want" syndrome.

  Parent

  Starting Score:	1		point
  Karma-Bonus Modifier		+1
  Total Score:		2