If a ban on stun guns is unconstitutional, then a ban on semi-automatic rifles and standard magazines is much more so, as they are much more common than stun guns. D.W.
BOSTON (AP) — Massachusetts’ highest court ruled Tuesday that the state’s ban on civilian possession of stun guns violates the U.S. Constitution’s right to bear arms.
The decision is a reversal for the court, which reached an opposite conclusion in a different case in 2015. The U.S. Supreme Court, however, set aside that earlier ruling, saying the Massachusetts court failed to properly explain its decision.
The Supreme Judicial Court said it would leave the 2004 ban in place for 60 days to give the Legislature time to rewrite the law to regulate the ownership of stun guns, without banning them entirely.
“We conclude that the absolute prohibition against civilian possession of stun guns … is in violation of the Second Amendment, and we order that the count of the complaint charging the defendant with such possession be dismissed with prejudice,” the justices wrote.
More Here
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
1 comment:
Infringed. I don't think that word means what they think it means.
Or they're setting a precedent for "not banning" guns, as well.
Post a Comment