Supreme Court Rules Stun-Guns Fine for Self Defense

by Alfonso Matthews Marcha 22, 2016, 1:10
Supreme Court Rules Stun-Guns Fine for Self Defense

Caetano involved the prosecution of Jaime Caetano, a domestic violence victim who threatened her abuser with a stun gun.

No member of the Supreme Court dissented from today's per curiam opinion in Caetano v. MA.

The Supreme Court has apparently gone postal, and has decided that you do not have the right to bear arms in the Post Office, or even lock up your gun in the parking lot of postal facilities.

MA is one of a handful of states, including Hawaii, New Jersey, New York, and Rhode Island, that prohibit the use and possession of stun guns.

"This ruling shows that the United States Supreme Court is not happy with lower courts ignoring the Heller and McDonald decisions affirming the individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense", said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. The justices were referring to the court's 2008 ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller that struck down Washington, D.C.,'s handgun ban and said the Constitution guarantees the right to a gun, at least for self-defense at home. Yet as the U.S. Supreme Court observed today, that judgment "is inconsistent with Heller's clear statement that the Second Amendment 'extends...to...arms...that were not in existence at the time of the founding.'" In other words, the MA high court got Heller wrong and the U.S. Supreme Court just instructed that court to get it right the second time around.

The Supreme Court won't hear a dispute over a U.S. Postal Service regulation that bans guns from post office property and adjacent parking lots. Since its 2008 ruling, and a subsequent one clarifying that the rule applied nationwide, the court had consistently turned away invitations to expand the ruling to cover weapons outside the home.

"Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment". They noted that Scalia's 5-4 ruling in Heller specified it could be applied to modern weapons. However, Justice Sameuel Alito, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, wrote a separate concurring opinion in which he left little doubt that if it were up to him (and Thomas), the state's actions would have been ruled flatly unconstitutional.


TOP News

Missouri GOP announces delegate allocation from primary

Microsoft says hiring go-go dancers at Xbox party was wrong

Samsung Windows 10 TabPro S on sale today

Puerto Rico's Miss Universe title holder is out; she doesn't like cameras

NCAA Basketball Picks Middle Tennessee State Blue Raiders vs Syracuse Orange