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:Military use (Score: 1) by Fauxlosopher on Tuesday March 10 2015, @07:01PM

  by Fauxlosopher (4804) on Tuesday March 10 2015, @07:01PM (#155602) Journal

  and the harm to others that individual can cause in the exercise of that freedom

  The phrase you're looking for is "prior restraint [wikipedia.org]", and the concept applies just as much to other rights as it does to free speech.

  You may well be correct in a nation where those in government own the rest of the people. In a nation where the government's authority originates from and is limited to that of ultimately a single individual, you cannot be correct. Rights are absolute, with the only boundary being those absolute rights of other humans. Protip: there is no right to "feel safe".

  Parent