SCOTUS Unanimously Backs Right to Own/Use Stun Guns

[etrain16]

In a surprising unanimous vote by the SCOTUS, a woman's right to own a stun gun for self defense has been upheld. The state of Massachusetts arrested a woman for possession of a stun gun she used to ward off her ex. The state took the case all the way to the supreme court and turned out, in my opinion, a very surprising ruling - stating that the 2nd amendment also protects the right to own a stun gun! Shocking

They even countered the argument by the state of MA that stun guns weren't protected because they weren't around when the 2nd was written by stating that electronic forms of communication are protected under the first, even though they weren't around when it was written. Wow, strange to hear that coming from the entire court.

Not a lot of positive news for us lately, but this one is worth noting.

Here is the story if you'd like to read it - it's short:

http://patriotpost.us/posts/41464

Read More

 

[PaulB47]

Just goes to show how far off the deep end Massachusetts is.

stun guns weren't protected because they weren't around when the 2nd was written

A similar ploy (against "assault weapons" I think) was attempted by some Portland politician, or maybe a court, 15 or 20 years ago. It went nowhere. How anyone can make this argument is beyond me.

 

[CHLChris]

Wow! Wow! Wow! I can't understate how wowed I am!

Most of our current arms--I'm especially thinking of all the evil, black guns--weren't around when the BoR was penned. I wonder if the Left jurists will read their own opinion when it comes to bans on "assault rifles".

 

[bolus]

Wow! Wow! Wow! I can't understate how wowed I am!

Most of our current arms--I'm especially thinking of all the evil, black guns--weren't around when the BoR was penned. I wonder if the Left jurists will read their own opinion when it comes to bans on "assault rifles".

at very least Im so happy the "2nd amendment means muskets" argument is finally over.

Also, any court that makes a decision that basically says "you are legally required to be a victim and not defend yourself" should be choke slammed through their own bench.

 

[WasrNwarpaint]

look at the big picture.....their next argument will be you dont need anything but a stun gun

 

[Mark W.]

If that is the case I want a hundred and fifty thousand volts stun gun with extending songs I want 800 Mega amp backup battery and I want to carry it open or I want the one from Ghostbusters

 

[shootnscoot]

Interesting, I know some cities up here in Washington, like Bellingham, ban ownership of all stun gun/tasers.

 

[thorborg]

look at the big picture.....their next argument will be you dont need anything but a stun gun

I was still mumbling these very words when I read that post then my mind drifted to when the guns are gone the stun gun will be revisited an next to revise..

 

[bolus]

If that is the case I want a hundred and fifty thousand volts stun gun with extending songs I want 800 Mega amp backup battery and I want to carry it open or I want the one from Ghostbusters

it would sure be hard to pass up on a positron collider

 

[etrain16]

look at the big picture.....their next argument will be you dont need anything but a stun gun

No doubt some will try that, but I doubt it will get them very far.

I'm wondering now how many state's laws against owning/carrying a stun gun will be challenged now that SCOTUS has made this surprising decision.

 

[Caveman Jim]

This decision should cover entire country

 

[Stomper]

So if the 2A covers the individual's right to own a stun-gun, then AXIOMATICALLY it covers the individual's right to own a firearm(s).

Notice it addresses the right to OWN, but not about CARRYING arms outside the home? Of course that has already been addressed by the ruling affecting Illinois and Wash DC, you DO have a right to CARRY arms outside, all one has to do is connect the dots.

Hillary Clinton should be sheiting herself about now, since she's on the record stating earlier how the SCOTUS is wrong about the 2A... now her four lefty compatriots on the bench have ruled against her blather.

 

[Caveman Jim]

So if the 2A covers the individual's right to own a stun-gun, then AXIOMATICALLY it covers the individual's right to own a firearm(s).

Notice it addresses the right to OWN, but not about CARRYING arms outside the home? Of course that has already been addressed by the ruling affecting Illinois and Wash DC, you DO have a right to CARRY arms outside, all one has to do is connect the dots.

Hillary Clinton should be sheiting herself about now, since she's on the record stating earlier how the SCOTUS is wrong about the 2A... now her four lefty compatriots on the bench have ruled against her blather.

Maybe this right here got them motivated!!!!

 

[Stomper]

They're slowly painting themselves into a corner... funny how sheisters often have that happen to themselves.

 

[Caveman Jim]

This decision should cover entire country

Mods, I'd appreciate it if you would PM me when you feel the need to edit my posts.
If it erks you that bad then just delete it!!!!

 

[WasrNwarpaint]

Mods, I'd appreciate it if you would PM me when you feel the need to edit my posts.
If it erks you that bad then just delete it!!!!

we are in Oregon you must be PC at all times

 

[Caveman Jim]

Figures....

 

[nehalemguy]

This decision should cover entire country

It won't....at least not yet. The SC pulled short of declaring a stun gun ban unconstitutional although Alito and Thomas both wanted to go that direction.

For now, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the ruling by the Massachusetts Supreme Court, which upheld Caetano's conviction. It's now relegated back to the local courts to be litigated again, but the prosecution won't be able to replay their BS argument again.

E

 

[The Heretic]

This is what I have been saying for years.

The Second Amendment doesn't say "firearms" it says "arms".

Arms in that context means any "arms" that the military has, as in firearms (full auto or not), grenades, cannon, etc.

And yes, even stun guns!

 

[Martini_Up]

This is what I have been saying for years.

The Second Amendment doesn't say "firearms" it says "arms".

Arms in that context means any "arms" that the military has, as in firearms (full auto or not), grenades, cannon, etc.

And yes, even stun guns!

Or knives, sabers, cutlass' and the like....