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This discussion has been archived.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 Wednesday March 11 2015, @01:31AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 11 2015, @01:31AM (#155854)

    I can only assume you are resorting to desperate misdirection. This story and thread deal with arms and individuals (inside and/or outside of militias). If you had bothered to take the time to actually read my replies to you, you would have read...

    the US Constitution was created at the Philadelphia Convention and rested ultimately upon the delegated authority of the single individual American human, of which many voted to elect representatives to the Convention and yet none of which could give any one of themselves nor any subsequent creation of law more authority than any one of them individually had

    ... that the underlying principles I wrote about apply to the entire width and breadth of the US Constitution, and address the lawlessness of government agents' conduct with all the amendments you just mentioned. And, no, the principles espoused in the Second Amendment will never be meaningless, as evidenced by the multitude of links previously posted, several of which document armed individuals successfully resisting the criminal conduct of government agents, conduct that covers violations beyond just the Second Amendment.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 11 2015, @01:54AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 11 2015, @01:54AM (#155864)

    conduct that covers violations beyond just the Second Amendment.

    [Citation Needed]

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 11 2015, @01:59AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 11 2015, @01:59AM (#155866)

      Read, you idiot [soylentnews.org].