Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Tuesday March 10 2015, @11:28AM   Printer-friendly
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.

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

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by TheRaven on Tuesday March 10 2015, @04:41PM

    by TheRaven (270) on Tuesday March 10 2015, @04:41PM (#155511) Journal

    Stun gun was the best less-than-lethal weapon.

    The fact that you were trained with them, yet apparently believe that they are not in the 'can kill' category that you put some other less-lethal weapons in is slightly alarming. They're likely to be fatal to anyone with a heart condition or pacemaker and can be lethal to otherwise healthy people depending on where you hit them and a few other factors. There is no such thing as a 'less-than-lethal weapon' there are only less-probable-to-be-lethal weapons.

    One of the problems with giving the police Tasers is that they are far more likely to fire a 'non-lethal' weapon at someone than a gun (though the police in the USA seem to be redressing this) and are often not aware of how likely that weapon actually is to be lethal.

    --
    sudo mod me up
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by tibman on Tuesday March 10 2015, @09:37PM

    by tibman (134) on Tuesday March 10 2015, @09:37PM (#155701)

    You are actually mixing terms. Non-Lethal means that it cannot kill. Less-than-lethal means that it is designed to be non-lethal but can result in death. Lethal is a weapon intended to kill. I was never trained with a non-lethal weapon.

    --
    SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.