Skip to comments.
Poll: Does the 2nd Amendment Cover Stun Guns?
Gun Watch ^
| 30 November, 2014
| Dean Weingarten
Posted on 11/29/2014 7:25:43 AM PST by marktwain
There is an interesting court case proceeding in Massachusetts. A homeless woman was given a stun gun for defensive purposes. She used it to defend herself against domestic abuse. She was arrested for shoplifting, and the police found the stun gun, which is banned in Massachusetts, one of only five states to do so. In her defense, her public defender is claiming her second amendment rights cover the stun gun.
In Michigan,the state supreme court ruled that stun guns are protected by the second amendment. One of the arguments of the prosecutor in Massachusetts seems to be that there is no right to self defense outside of the home. From uppermichiganssource.com:
In a legal brief, prosecutors argue that the Second Amendment does not establish a constitutional right to own a stun gun and that two pivotal U.S. Supreme Court decisions that upheld the right to own a firearm for self-defense inside homes did not automatically grant that right outside the home.
An online poll asks a simple question:
Do you think stun guns should be covered under the second amendment?
Yes is at 80%; No is at 20%.
Here is a link to the poll. It is at the bottom of the article.
An important question before the court is if being without a home deprives a person of their constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
Numerous courts have already ruled that being homeless may not deprive a person of the right to vote.
©2014 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.Link to Gun Watch
TOPICS: Government; Outdoors; Politics; Society
KEYWORDS: banglist; ma; secondamendment; stungun
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60 next last
What would be the compelling state interest that would override the right to self defense for a homeless woman?
1
posted on
11/29/2014 7:25:43 AM PST
by
marktwain
To: marktwain
"What would be the compelling state interest that would override the right to self defense for a homeless woman?" The "state" is always interested in disarming its subjects. If they have the ability to defend themselves, they are less dependent on the state, and the state must foster dependence in order to grow and expand. The state exists to grow and expand.
2
posted on
11/29/2014 7:30:24 AM PST
by
Joe 6-pack
(Qui me amat, amat et canem meum.)
To: marktwain
The state interest in keeping all citizens defenseless against the state, of course.
I find it very ironic that the states which once rebelled against the abuses of Parliament under King George III now abuse their own citizens in ways and extent barely dreamed of by the old-tyme oppressors.
3
posted on
11/29/2014 7:30:54 AM PST
by
hoosierham
(Freedom isn't free)
To: marktwain
...arguments of the prosecutor in Massachusetts seems to be that there is no right to self defense outside of the home.Well, there's your problem, right there:
...the prosecutor is a flipping idiot.
Yes, stun guns should be protected by the 2nd Amendment.
As should knives, bow and arrows, axe handles, baseball bats, cannons, missiles, RPG's and rubber bands.
And there is not the least bit of sarcasm in my post.
4
posted on
11/29/2014 7:31:15 AM PST
by
OldSmaj
(obama is a worthless mohametan. Impeach his ass now!)
To: marktwain
> What would be the compelling state interest that would override the right to self defense for a homeless woman?
The bigger question is why would legislators question any woman’s right to defend herself? I guess we better ask Bill Clinton this one.../s
To: marktwain
It covers all of the 'terrible instruments of war'. Swords, spears, firearms, armor....
/johnny
To: marktwain
My or any other person’s right of self defense does not come from the government nor the people. I do not recognize any authority or law that would limit that right nor restrict it based on location.
7
posted on
11/29/2014 7:38:57 AM PST
by
bitterohiogunclinger
(Proudly casting a heavy carbon footprint as I clean my guns ---)
To: marktwain
8
posted on
11/29/2014 7:40:27 AM PST
by
Menehune56
("Let them hate so long as they fear" (Oderint Dum Metuant), Lucius Accius (170 BC - 86 BC))
To: JRandomFreeper
“It covers all of the ‘terrible instruments of war’. Swords, spears, firearms, armor....”
It seems clear, there. I believe it covers all weapons that can be carried.
9
posted on
11/29/2014 7:40:55 AM PST
by
marktwain
(The old media must die for the Republic to live. Long live the new media!)
To: marktwain
I view warships and cannon as arms, also. The new US of A had to borrow private ships and cannons when they first started up.
/johnny
To: dynachrome
11
posted on
11/29/2014 7:42:42 AM PST
by
marktwain
(The old media must die for the Republic to live. Long live the new media!)
To: marktwain
I didn’t think it was all that clear from SCOTUS we could bear arms outside the home.
12
posted on
11/29/2014 7:44:12 AM PST
by
umgud
(I couldn't understand why the ball kept getting bigger......... then it hit me.)
To: Menehune56
YES is up to 84% now.Now back down to 82%
13
posted on
11/29/2014 7:48:16 AM PST
by
houeto
(https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate)
To: umgud
The 2nd amendment is pretty clear, and doesn't have an 'at home only' clause.
/johnny
To: umgud
SCOTUS may not have been clear in Heller, but I think the second amendment is clear.
Bearing arms outside the home was not at issue in Heller.
15
posted on
11/29/2014 7:49:15 AM PST
by
marktwain
(The old media must die for the Republic to live. Long live the new media!)
To: marktwain
16
posted on
11/29/2014 7:49:32 AM PST
by
Vendome
(Don't take life so seriously-you won't live through it anyway-Enjoy Yourself ala Louis Prima)
To: marktwain
I would say it extends to anything that can be answered by the question: “If a citizen desires to do so, could it be used as a defensive or offensive weapon, regardless of how effective it may or may not be”?
That should cover it.
To: marktwain
Yes, and I believe it covers potato guns too.
18
posted on
11/29/2014 7:53:32 AM PST
by
Cowboy Bob
(They are called "Liberals" because the word "parasite" was already taken.)
To: marktwain
The Constitution says whatever five out of nine Supreme Court justices say it says.
Scalia and Kennedy are both almost 80 years old. If Obama gets to replace either one then five out of nine will be hard core leftists with Obama’s picks all legislating form the bench for the next 30 years.
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
19
posted on
11/29/2014 8:06:24 AM PST
by
Bubba_Leroy
(The Obamanation Continues)
To: marktwain
What kinds of speech are protected by the First Amendment? Does the First Amendment only protect speech inside your home?
Same analysis.
20
posted on
11/29/2014 8:09:53 AM PST
by
Bubba_Leroy
(The Obamanation Continues)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson