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: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 10 2015, @04:34PM
And they run nutjobs as candidates, who want to push ultra-Christian, anti-family agendas. There are quite a few Republicans in our fair state, and the state really isn't as overwhelmingly liberal as it's made out to be. Moderate Republicans tend to do fairly well in many areas. Hell in my town there's a towing company with the confederate flag on all their vehicles that gets to be in an annual parade, which I find so utterly distasteful and disgraceful to our country and our veterans, as it's blatantly un-American. I'm fairly liberal and I've strongly considered many conservative candidates until they start talking about gutting our schools, forcing me to pay for a private pipeline with tax dollars while putting it through public nature areas, or pushing ultra-Christian agendas into schools. I really think a more centrist libertarian candidate who focused on getting the government out of our business would do far better in the state.