Go Back   This Blue Marble, a Global Current Events Discussion Forum > Our Homestead > Preparedness > Armory

Armory Our modern, fully-stocked armory is where enthusiasts gather to discuss shooting and other martial arts, and related subjects.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 03-22-2016, 02:13 PM   #1
A.T. Hagan
Your "Crazy Town" reporter
 
A.T. Hagan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: North/Central Florida
Posts: 12,656
Thanks: 2,761
Thanked 6,878 Times in 2,947 Posts
Default Are Stun Guns Protected By Second Amendment? Supreme Court Suggests Yes

http://www.npr.org/2016/03/21/471316...cond-amendment


Jaime Caetano was convicted of violating the Massachusetts' ban on
stun guns after one was found in her purse.
Alain Jocard/AFP/Getty Images


Quote:
The Supreme Court strongly suggested Monday that stun guns are protected by the Second Amendment right to bear arms.

In 2008 the court, by a 5-4 vote, declared for the first time that the Second Amendment guarantees citizens the right to own and keep a handgun in their homes for self defense. But that decision in District of Columbia v. Heller left unresolved many questions about how much the government could regulate that right, and what weapons are included.

Enter Jaime Caetano, a Massachusetts woman who had obtained a restraining order against an abusive ex-partner and carried a stun gun for self-protection. When police discovered the weapon in her purse, she was convicted of violating the state's ban on stun guns. She appealed, contending that the ban violated the Constitution's right to bear arms. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled against her, declaring that stuns guns were not in existence when the Second Amendment was written.

Monday, the Supreme Court overturned that decision, which it said clearly contradicted the specific language of the 2008 ruling. The justices then sent the case back to the Massachusetts court for further unspecified action, but the message looked pretty clear: stun guns are covered by the Second Amendment right to bear arms.

Writing separately, Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, delivered a full-throated defense of the right to carry a stun gun, and a broad definition of what weapons are covered by the right to bear arms. They called the unsigned opinion of the court "grudging."
I had to look up what "per curium" means.
__________________
Chance favors the prepared mind.
A.T. Hagan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2016, 02:24 PM   #2
Sysiphus
Senior Level 6
 
Sysiphus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Seattle
Posts: 8,531
Thanks: 693
Thanked 1,829 Times in 1,054 Posts
Of course they are. The 2nd amendment says "arms" not "guns".
__________________
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Sysiphus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2016, 06:07 PM   #3
Potemkin
Omne ignotum pro magnifico
 
Potemkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 27,920
Blog Entries: 3
Thanks: 110
Thanked 5,641 Times in 2,802 Posts
Quote:
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled against her, declaring that stuns guns were not in existence when the Second Amendment was written.
That is bull****

You know where they are going with that.

"Well, when they wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights they were only thinking of flintlocks."
__________________
“The price of freedom is the willingness to do sudden battle anywhere, any time and with utter recklessness.”
― Robert A. Heinlein, The Puppet Masters
Potemkin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2016, 08:22 AM   #4
Exodia
Khan of the Golden Horde
 
Exodia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Southeast PA
Posts: 11,172
Thanks: 2,570
Thanked 4,736 Times in 2,130 Posts
Quote:
stuns guns were not in existence when the Second Amendment was written.
Neither was radio, TV, or internet, so I guess none of them enjoy freedom of the press.

None of the houses in Denver existed then either, so go ahead army, feel free to quarter your troops there, anywhere you want.
__________________
"Now, mark my words. So long as we are a young and virtuous people, this instrument will bind us together in mutual interests, mutual welfare, and mutual happiness. But when we become old and corrupt, it will bind us no longer" - Alexander Hamilton about the US Constitution.

Last edited by Exodia; 03-24-2016 at 09:52 AM. Reason: spelling
Exodia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2016, 09:49 AM   #5
A.T. Hagan
Your "Crazy Town" reporter
 
A.T. Hagan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: North/Central Florida
Posts: 12,656
Thanks: 2,761
Thanked 6,878 Times in 2,947 Posts
Is anyone really surprised with what a court in the Pipples Republic of Massachusetts says?

Weren't they the ones who came up with the duty to retreat?
__________________
Chance favors the prepared mind.
A.T. Hagan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2016, 01:32 PM   #6
Glockd
5.56, faster than 911
 
Glockd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Arizona
Posts: 6,194
Thanks: 136
Thanked 1,795 Times in 830 Posts
Well, good then, I can send my wife back to visit family.
__________________


"When the enemy is in range, so are you!" - Murphy
كافر & Proud
Glockd is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
amendment, court, guns, protected, stun, suggests, supreme

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:53 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright © Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.