Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

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

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This discussion has been archived.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.
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 khallow on Wednesday March 11 2015, @09:11PM

    by khallow (3766) on Wednesday March 11 2015, @09:11PM (#156305) Journal

    And the other side, despite being all "guns are scary", decided to ignore literally half of the amendment as written, which is how the "well regulated Militia" part ended up being completely ignored?

    English working as intended. There's no point to this argument.