tangent4ronpaul
Banned
- Joined
- May 11, 2007
- Messages
- 21,101
You have the right to bear arms, not “electrical” arms, court declares
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...bear-arms-not-electrical-arms-court-declares/
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 (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 Massachusetts top court concluded that the woman could have applied for a permit to carry a concealed weapon, like a handgun instead.
"Barring any cause for disqualification the defendant could have applied for a license to carry a firearm," the court ruled.
The court added that, "possession of mace or pepper spray for self-defense no longer requires a license."
That seems strange, according to Michael E. Rosman, general counsel for the Center for Individual Rights in Washington, D.C.
In Massachusetts, he told the Boston Globe, the public is "permitted with a license to have guns and carry guns. It makes no sense to say you shouldn’t be allowed to have a weapon that you can defend yourself with, but is less dangerous to the attacker."
The ban on stun guns, he told the Globe, is “perverse” because they are less lethal than other weapons.
The public, he said, is “being pushed into handgun possession by the ban on stun guns.”
-t
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...bear-arms-not-electrical-arms-court-declares/
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 (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 Massachusetts top court concluded that the woman could have applied for a permit to carry a concealed weapon, like a handgun instead.
"Barring any cause for disqualification the defendant could have applied for a license to carry a firearm," the court ruled.
The court added that, "possession of mace or pepper spray for self-defense no longer requires a license."
That seems strange, according to Michael E. Rosman, general counsel for the Center for Individual Rights in Washington, D.C.
In Massachusetts, he told the Boston Globe, the public is "permitted with a license to have guns and carry guns. It makes no sense to say you shouldn’t be allowed to have a weapon that you can defend yourself with, but is less dangerous to the attacker."
The ban on stun guns, he told the Globe, is “perverse” because they are less lethal than other weapons.
The public, he said, is “being pushed into handgun possession by the ban on stun guns.”
-t
