U.S. top court throws out Massachusetts stun gun ruling

[Eugene]

Source: Reuters

The Supreme Court on Monday threw out a Massachusetts court ruling that stun guns are not covered by the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of the right to bear arms, siding with a woman who said she carried one as protection against an abusive former boyfriend.

The court, in an unsigned ruling with no dissents, ruled in favor of Jaime Caetano, who in 2011 was arrested for possession of a stun gun in violation of a state law banning such weapons. The ruling provided a victory, at least temporarily, for gun rights advocates.

The justices decided that a March 2015 Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruling was inconsistent with a 2008 Supreme Court decision declaring an individual right to bear arms. That 5-4 ruling in the case District of Columbia v. Heller left open many questions about the extent of the individual right, the firearms covered and when government regulations would stand.

Monday's decision did not further clarify the standards of the Heller ruling, yet it signaled that lower courts should not look narrowly at the weapons covered.

[font size=1]-snip-[/font]


Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-stunguns-idUSKCN0WN1N9

---

World | Mon Mar 21, 2016 11:12am EDT
WASHINGTON | BY LAWRENCE HURLEY

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

1. So you can have an AK-47, but not a stun-gun?

I think they had it backwards. Good that the court (without Scalia) is a bit more sane.

[NutmegYankee]

2. I think you got it backwards.

The SCOTUS overruled a Mass. court case that said stun guns were not protected by the 2nd. The SCOTUS tossed the case back into Mass. courts with the clear direction to make stun guns legal. As an ideal less-than-lethal defense weapon for self defense by women, I agree with this decision.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

4. I was commenting on the assholes that said she couldn't have a stun gun

[NutmegYankee]

6. Got it. nt

[SlipperySlope]

3. But you can have a stun-gun...

The key thing here is that the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the Massachusetts court's reasons for deciding that stun guns could be banned don't obey Second Amendment precedent. Put differently, the Second Amendment doesn't just protect firearms but other weapons (like stun guns) as well.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

5. I was commenting on the assholes that said she couldn't have a stun gun

[Yo_Mama]

8. Yes, but that was the Mass SC, not the federal SC. Scalia was a US Supreme Court justice.

That's why you have got everyone confused.

I find it hard to understand the Massachusetts court, to be honest. Here's what the SC issued today:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf

There is something pretty odd about the Mass legal reasoning. All modern weapons weren't in use at the time the Bill of Rights was written or ratified. Revolvers didn't exist in the 1700s. It makes no sense.

There is also something more than a little sick about arresting a woman for having a defensive weapon like this, esp. when she already had restraining orders (ineffective) and was acknowledgeably in danger.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

10. It wouldn't make any sense if I meant the SCOTUS

It was an attempt to ridicule the proper people. Sorry I confused everyone. Oh well, c'est la vie!

[One_Life_To_Give]

7. Now how will the legislature respond?

Will a FID card be required to purchase a Stun Gun? Will the local police chief be the arbiter of who can and cannot carry a stun gun concealed? And is it reasonable to expect a homeless woman like Ms Caetano would be able to jump thru the legal paperwork that will be required?

[Yo_Mama]

9. The rules will be

A) Is the applicant black ----> No.
B) Is the applicant a friend of the local authorities ----> Yes (regardless of how many criminal convictions).
C) Is the applicant a steady donor to the local police/mayor's campaign fund? ----> Yes, and a stun gun will be provided free of charge (they have many confiscated from poor blacks).

We talk a lot about prejudice here, but the history of gun laws screams bias and privilege.

Then, setting aside the legalities, consider the ethics of the situation. This woman has been attacked and has restraining orders against her abuser. The restraining orders are ineffective. She gets a totally defensive weapon, and she's the one who winds up a criminal. Something effing stinks!