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, Insightful) by fadrian on Tuesday March 10 2015, @05:37PM
What the hell? OK. I am not a gun nut. I am a semi-staunch Socialist who thinks that income/social inequalities are rampant in our society and I am a firm believer that firearms in the hands of most individuals in urban areas is a bad idea and makes us less safe... um kay? I state my liberal bona fides to make sure that everyone knows that this is an incredibly stupid and counterproductive ruling.
Although it is (relatively-) settled constitutional law that weapons can be classified and controlled, and the judge is within his rights to make this ruling, I am not sure that placing a normally defensive weapon under the same restrictions as a normally offensive weapon is a good thing. I understand that the judge wants to keep any new weapons off the street, as electric stun devices can be used offensively as well as defensively, but a knife be used that way, too - slippery slopes make both good (and bad) law. But when you get right down to it? There are always going to be people who are afraid. I'd hope that the availability of non-lethal weaponry would keep more firearms out of more folks hands (an assumption that might be false) - just as harm reduction seems to be the way to go with drugs, I'd say it's the way to go with our weapons addiction, as well. I'd rather face a taser than a metal slug coming out of a barrel because I know which one I'm more likely to survive.
All said, though, I expect an appellate court to kick this back down - not because I think that this judge doesn't have the (relatively-) settled question of government's right to make this ruling (judges have the constitutional right to make all sorts of stupid decisions and then occasionally have them overturned by other constitutionally appointed judge sitting above them), but because there's not enough differentiation between a firearm and an electrical stun weapon in potential use and abuse to be sufficient for a separate interpretation under current law (i.e., just find that a stun gun is the same as any other handgun), because, basically, if the populace must have weapons, it's better that they be non-lethal (or less-lethal).
That is all.