Supreme Court: 2nd Amendment applies to Stun Guns [More]But...but...but...the Founders could never have imagined....
This one could establish interesting precedent for future attempts to deny technological developments based on "common use at the time" arguments. Not that I think they're gonna let us anywhere near these babies...
[Via Michael G]
UPDATE: Bluesgal sent a link to the decision. She also has a relevant question:
[I]f they are applying Heller to the "Stun Gun" and the right to carry one, why does this not then apply to the "gun" as well in Massachusetts and elsewhere?
SCOTUS Justice Alito stated it correctly concerning the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, but could very easily be talking about other states such as California, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Connecticut and Rhode Island:
ReplyDelete"If the fundamental right of self-defense does not protect Caetano, then the safety of all Americans is left to the mercy of state authorities who may be more concerned about disarming the people than about keeping them safe."
Note Alito's wording "right of self-defense", not the right to hunting and target practice. These states, and others, are "more concerned about disarming the people than about keeping them safe." Worse, Massachusetts has a two-tier citizenship scheme, where some citizens such as law enforcement officers, have more rights to keep and bear arms than non-law enforcement officers. The ability to obtain a state issued License to Carry Firearms necessary to purchase a pistol or revolver is left to the arbitrary discretion of local Chiefs of Police or the Colonel of the Massachusetts State Police. This scheme makes the keeping and bearing of some arms a privilege of status, not a right of citizens and ensures the enhanced status and employment of law enforcement officers.
http://joshblackman.com/blog/2016/03/21/justice-alitos-concurring-opinoin-in-caetano-massachusetts-more-concerned-about-disarming-the-people-than-about-keeping-them-safe/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Massachusetts
http://www.thetruthaboutknives.com/2013/04/know-your-knife-laws-massachusetts/
David- Make sure to read the entire decision, and the commentary. It seems to imply that all kinds of gun control laws are up for change. The comment that an item doesn't have to have militia use in order to be protected would indicate that anything that may have a military use is protected. Including "assault rifles", and "high capacity magazines". And the choice is up to the user, not the law. This decision is going to be quoted in all kinds of upcoming cases. I was stunned reading it, and the decision was unanimous!
ReplyDelete"[I]f they are applying Heller to the "Stun Gun" and the right to carry one, why does this not then apply to the "gun" as well in Massachusetts and elsewhere?”
ReplyDeleteEventually, I’m sure it will… as soon a someone “with standing” (meaning arrested and convicted in state court) challenges the state’s insane gun possession laws on the same basis. Judges make the minimum necessary ruling — they can’t reach out and touch a gun law on a case that involved no firearms.
If you want to see that happen sooner, send a much-needed love offering to the Commonwealth Second Amendment folks (comm2a.org) — it’s fully deductible as a charitable donation (legal defense society).