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 Re:Military use (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday March 10 2015, @07:22PM

  by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Tuesday March 10 2015, @07:22PM (#155629)

  I guarantee that if it were interpreted a different way they'd all be all about amending it.

  The problem is that even when the constitution is clear, the courts often just ignore it in favor of giving the government more power. All sorts of random exceptions are made to the first amendment and fourth amendment (among other things) that the constitution mentions nothing about, and the commerce clause is of course used to give the federal government nearly unlimited power to regulate nearly anything, even things that merely could potentially cross state borders.

  It doesn't seem to matter how clear you are. There are no real punishments for any politician or judge who outright ignores the constitution, and they're often cheered on anyway.

  Parent

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

• Re:Military use (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 10 2015, @07:40PM

  by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 10 2015, @07:40PM (#155649)

  There are no real punishments for any politician or judge who outright ignores the constitution, and they're often cheered on anyway.

  There really are, they're just never enforced:

  18 U.S. Code § 1918 [cornell.edu]

  Whoever violates the provision of section 7311 of title 5 [cornell.edu] that an individual may not accept or hold a position in the Government of the United States or the government of the District of Columbia if he—
  (1) advocates the overthrow of our constitutional form of government;
  (2) is a member of an organization that he knows advocates the overthrow of our constitutional form of government;
  ...
  shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year and a day, or both.

  By choosing to ignore the constitution or subverting it or suggesting to ignore or subvert it they are advocating the overthrow of our constitutional form of government, and anyone who does and accepts or holds a position in the Government should be fined or imprisoned for up to 366 days or both.

  Parent