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, @10:52PM

  by Fauxlosopher (4804) on Tuesday March 10 2015, @10:52PM (#155780) Journal

  You COMPLETELY overlook the US Constitution's purpose, and take Buzzard's lack of personal concern over women being included in the militia , and assume that the purpose of the US Constitution is to tell We the People what we may or may not do.

  Wrong. Completely wrong.

  If a woman wants to own a bazooka, all she has to do do to lawfully acquire one is head down to True Value Hardware And Bazookas and pay for one. (All laws repugnant to the Constitution are void; all laws restricting or forbidding the keeping or carrying of any type of arms are completely null and void [findlaw.com].)

  Parent