Massachusetts Supremes say Stun Guns are not “Arms” under 2d Amendment

In Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Caetano, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that although the 2d Amendment might protect the right to have a hand gun, it does not protect the right to have a stun gun – because the founders didn’t ponder electric weapons.

I guess they didn’t have the Internet or T.V. in mind either, but whatever.

5 Responses to Massachusetts Supremes say Stun Guns are not “Arms” under 2d Amendment

  1. Jay E. says:

    Based only on the reasoning I see here, the United States has not authority to raise an Air Force either, since our Framers could not conceive human flight.

  2. dan says:

    I suppose there’s two ways to
    look at this. You can say it raises the bar on the use of force so you better be fucking sure about it. The other side of the argument is that apparently everyone is fucking sure and don’t hesitate to shoot

  3. Jay Wolman says:

    Poor rationale. War hammers, maces, clubs, and other nonlethal arms were not unusual in the 18th century. This is simply another nonlethal weapon.
    And the claim that it can’t be easily militarized? C’mon–set phasers on stun!

  4. Not Jim Ardis says:

    I guess they would rather you shoot to kill instead of stun to incapacitate…

  5. Wang-Lo says:

    Evidently the constitution will protect her only if she is willing to escalate the tension with her ex to a potentially lethal level by threatening to blow his face off.

%d bloggers like this: