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: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 11 2015, @12:09AM
Allow me to say this too: I am all for interpreting the constitution by the spirit rather than letter, that would be far preferable since then encryption codes for your computer would be covered by the 5th, the internet and email would be covered by the 4th (thankfully SCOTUS agreed that phones are covered, but nothing else yet), the NSA's obvious spying on citizens along with the DEA and TSA would be immediately shut down, "free speech zones" / "constitution-free zones" and using the government to enforce religious laws would never fly, etc. Unfortunately for us, laws and the constitution depend on the letter rather than the spirit (unless and until it gets before the SCOTUS, which isn't even a power granted to them by the constitution), so the letter takes priority over the spirit. Either this needs to be changed or the wording needs to be changed. Since I don't think we'll ever get lucky enough to get the spirit to take precedence over the letter, its our responsibility to ensure the letter is as clear as possible in describing whats intended by the spirit.