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This discussion has been archived.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: 1) by Aichon on Wednesday March 11 2015, @04:20AM

    by Aichon (5059) on Wednesday March 11 2015, @04:20AM (#155915)

    Much as I don't like the law, it's not necessarily contradictory to begin with.

    Let M be "has military use"
    Let B be "is banned"

    What the court said was:
    If not M then B

    What the previous poster is arguing is that we should be able to infer the following is true:
    If M then not B

    But that logical implication clearly doesn't hold true. After all, as you pointed out, military stuff may be banned for other reasons that they invent.