Poll: Does the 2nd Amendment Cover Stun Guns?

Gun Watch ^ | 30 November, 2014 | Dean Weingarten

[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

[marktwain]

What would be the compelling state interest that would override the right to self defense for a homeless woman?

[Joe 6-pack]

"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.

[hoosierham]

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.

[OldSmaj]

...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.

[jsanders2001]

> 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

[JRandomFreeper]

It covers all of the 'terrible instruments of war'. Swords, spears, firearms, armor....

/johnny

[bitterohiogunclinger]

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.

[Menehune56]

YES is up to 84% now.

[marktwain]

“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.

[JRandomFreeper]

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

[marktwain]

Here is a poll for you.

[umgud]

I didn’t think it was all that clear from SCOTUS we could bear arms outside the home.

[houeto]

YES is up to 84% now.

Now back down to 82%

[JRandomFreeper]

The 2nd amendment is pretty clear, and doesn't have an 'at home only' clause.

/johnny

[marktwain]

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.

[Vendome]

Yes

[jaydee770]

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.

[Cowboy Bob]

Yes, and I believe it covers potato guns too.

[Bubba_Leroy]

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.

[Bubba_Leroy]

What kinds of speech are protected by the First Amendment? Does the First Amendment only protect speech inside your home?

Same analysis.