There is an interesting court case proceeding in Massachusetts. A homeless woman was given a stun gun for defensive purposes. She used it to defend herself against domestic abuse. She was arrested for shoplifting, and the police found the stun gun, which is banned in Massachusetts, one of only five states to do so. In her defense, her public defender is claiming her second amendment rights cover the stun gun.
In Michigan,the state supreme court ruled that stun guns are protected by the second amendment. One of the arguments of the prosecutor in Massachusetts seems to be that there is no right to self defense outside of the home. From uppermichiganssource.com:
In a legal brief, prosecutors argue that the Second Amendment does not establish a constitutional right to own a stun gun and that two pivotal U.S. Supreme Court decisions that upheld the right to own a firearm for self-defense inside homes did not automatically grant that right outside the home.An online poll asks a simple question:
Do you think stun guns should be covered under the second amendment?
Yes is at 80%; No is at 20%.
Here is a link to the poll. It is at the bottom of the article.
An important question before the court is if being without a home deprives a person of their constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Numerous courts have already ruled that being homeless may not deprive a person of the right to vote.
©2014 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch
Link to Gun Watch
What about a flare pistol that is normally found on small craft as part of thevrequired safety gear.
ReplyDeleteNot only blind someone, burn a hell of a hole in them.
Been reports of some running around with hornet or wasp spray that shoots a blinding stream of poison.
the 2nd amendment should cover stun guns and a plethora of other equipment.
ReplyDelete"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
ARMS is intentionally general. the framers of the constitution saw the advancement of weapons from swords to gunpowder based weapons (arms) and even the advances within gunpowder based weapons subcategory, from touchhole to wheel lock and to flintlock. they understood that the only way to counter tyranny was by having the same capability.