|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
You have the right to bear arms, but what about “electrical” arms or stun guns?
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
But what about electrical arms like stun guns, invented in 1972? Are they covered under this line of Supreme Court reasoning? Currently, that isn't clear.
The Supreme Court is being asked to decide—in a case challenging a Massachusetts ban on the private possession of a stun gun, or a "portable device or weapon from which an electrical current, impulse, wave or beam is designed to incapacitate temporarily, injure or kill...." The challenge before the justices comes in a burgeoning era in which a hodgepodge of weapons are being constructed at home DIY-style and via 3D-printing technology. |
| Comment by:
mickey
(8/22/2015)
|
Michigan's Court of Appeals says the SCOTUS interpretation in Heller defeats stun gun bans:
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2012/06/27/michigan-court-zaps-state-stun-gun-ban/ |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution. [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822) |
|
|
