search
top

Another Anti-Second Amendment Court Ruling.

The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts rules that a stun gun is a “dangerous and unusual” weapons, and thus not protected by the Second Amendment, so banning them is fine. No need for a Second Amendment analysis, as there is just no right at issue here.

We acknowledge that stun guns may have value for purposes of self-defense, but because they are not protected by the Second Amendment and because a rational basis exists for their prohibition, the lawfulness of their possession and use is a matter for the Legislature.

How long is the Supreme Court going to let lower courts thumb their noses at them? The next level of appeal for this is the Supreme Court of the United States. Maybe it might be worth trying a non-firearm case. Also, note, the Court here only recognized there was a Second Amendment right to a gun in the home. That’s it. It’s like they never even bothered to read the rest of the decision, which recognized the right as not being one limited to the home.

14 Responses to “Another Anti-Second Amendment Court Ruling.”

  1. Eggo says:

    Oooh, this bench smack is going to be good.

    • terraformer says:

      Why do you think that SCOTUS is going to take this case? Not a single state supreme court and not a single circuit court of appeals has addressed the issue of stun guns. Granted, three, maybe four state supreme courts have dealt with whether or not knives are protected and no circuits have.

      So instead of a 0.001% chance of cert grant, maybe this has about a 10% chance of cert grant.

      • PT says:

        People v Yanna, Michigan Supreme Court said that the 2a and 5a (I think michigans rkba provision) protected stun guns and tasers.

    • dwb says:

      Wish I were optimistic. I doubt the SCT will take this case.

  2. Archer says:

    “[T]he Court here only recognized there was a Second Amendment right to a gun in the home. That’s it. It’s like they never even bothered to read the rest of the decision, which recognized the right as not being one limited to the home.

    I’m increasingly convinced that they’ve read it, and they understand it, but they don’t like it, so they’re not going to play by the rules.

    After all, even if their decision goes against precedent and is summarily smacked down, they carry no personal or professional liability. Zero. None. So why should we expect them to follow a precedent with which they obviously don’t agree?

    Or, in the words of Thomas Sowell: “It’s hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong.”

    • terraformer says:

      I am with you. They have not only read it, they understand it very well and this decision is purely strategic. they are playing the odds that SCOTUS won’t take the case. Mind you, I wrote one of the amicus briefs filed in this case, so I am a little bit biased, but my take on this court is it’s actively playing the field and not simply trying to do the right thing.

  3. Lance Lot Link says:

    This one could be a good one. It seems to have all the right pieces, female victim of domestic violence, bad boyfriend, homeless, and involving a non lethal weapon.

    Odds are good for this one. I’d give it as high as 1 or 2 percent chance of going to the SCOTUS.

  4. I’m about sick of this “rational basis” crap as regards fundamental civil rights. This category of rights, of which the right to keep and bear arms is a member, should only be considered by the courts under “strict scrutiny” doctrine, meaning in plain language there had better be a dang good public reason for the government getting anywhere CLOSE to an infringement.

  5. Phelps says:

    It’s a dangerous and unusual weapon? That should mean that for the police to use it, that would be negligent and reckless on its face. After all, what prudent person uses a dangerous and unusual weapon?

    • Ian Argent says:

      Police are allowed to be reckless on occasion (car chases are reckless as anything; if not wreckless). Not a good argument in the face of a hostile judiciary, particularly one that is perfectly willing to carve out special privileges for the police in all kinds of areas.

  6. Brad says:

    Hah! I didn’t even know that stun guns were banned in Massachusetts.

    Aside from the flim-flammery of the Court ruling, doesn’t the fact that the anti-gunners fight to defend a ban on stun-guns expose what lunatics and liars they are? That they are so extremist, they even want to ban stun guns? That they are so anti-2nd Amendment, that they claim the 2nd can’t even prevent a ban on stun-guns? That this extremist policy is what they really mean when they bla bla bla about ‘reasonable’ ‘gun safety’ laws?

    Just once I would like to see a proponent of gun control confronted on air by someone who would challenge the proponent to defend the ban on stun guns!

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. SayUncle » Live free or there - […] In Massachusetts: […]
  2. “Everything That Is Not Licensed Is FORBIDDEN” | Guffaw in AZ - […] In Massachusetts: […]
top