Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

You Have the Right to Bear Arms, Not “Electrical” Arms, Court Declares

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

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
You Have the Right to Bear Arms, Not “Electrical” Arms, Court Declares | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 164 comments | Search Discussion
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: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 10 2015, @08:42PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 10 2015, @08:42PM (#155677)

    Which is exactly why it should be amended, so that the wording can't be used to justify different interpretations in the future.

    And then language will change and people will misinterpret it again. Then we'll need another amendment, which will take a long time.

    you cannot say the spirit applies for the 2nd but the wording applies for the 4th and other amendments

    I don't say that. The government violates the 4th amendment with mass surveillance, etc. The spirit applies to both.

  • (Score: 2) by tathra on Tuesday March 10 2015, @09:19PM

    by tathra (3367) on Tuesday March 10 2015, @09:19PM (#155693)

    And then language will change and people will misinterpret it again. Then we'll need another amendment

    Which is the entire point of having the Constitutional Amendment process in the first place, to update the Constitution when necessary due to changes in times or meanings of words.