Posted on 03/22/2016 3:20:41 PM PDT by Lorianne
The U.S. Supreme Court vacated a ruling that criminalized stun guns by excluding them from Second Amendment protections.
In 2011, a Massachusetts woman, Jaime Caetano, was arrested for carrying a stun gun in her purse to protect herself from her abusive ex-boyfriend. A judge at the time ruled that Caetano’s decision to carry a stun gun was illegal because the Second Amendment right to bear arms only applies to the types of weapons commonly used at the time the amendment was ratified.
Last year, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts upheld Caetano’s criminal conviction, saying that a stun gun “is not the type of weapon that is eligible for Second Amendment protection.”
On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the lower court’s ruling and ordered the Massachusetts court to rehear the case. No members of the Court dissented from the opinion ordering the state court to rehear the case. In a separate opinion, Justice Samuel Alito and Justice Clarence Thomas slammed the Massachusetts court for being “more concerned about disarming the people than about keeping them safe.”
(Excerpt) Read more at thefederalist.com ...
I'M GETTING MY CANNON...........I'M GETTING MY CANNON...........ALRIGHTY!!!!!
After all they had cannons at the time!
Good. I have several cap and ball revolvers.
hmmmmm..well said..but would look good on em...lol
I like to ask them if the 1st Amendment only applies to hand operated printing presses and not computer printers, electric driven newspaper printing presses, TV or radio communication, since none of them existed at the time of the writing of the Constitution?
I usually get something from them well that's different. Like how? Well it just is!
Maybe the would come under the 1st Amend.’s ‘redress of grievances!’ ;-)
What a biased man.
When liberals do something right it’s a state of mind called “clarity” however the other 99.9% of their lives are resistent tand immune from such thought.
Yes a stun gun is not a firearm. But it says “the Right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” does not exclude knives or stun guns. Arms are whatever, I as a free man, decide is appropriate to ensure my personal security at any given moment.
These judges need to be impeached and removed from office.
Funny you should mention that.
................
https://twitter.com/HamillHimself/status/711626801068515329?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
Mark HamillVerified account
@HamillHimself Mark Hamill Retweeted Everytown
Don't get me wrong, as a strong supporter of the 2nd Ammendment-I believe in every American's right to own a musket.
...................
Completely lost on Hamill is the irony of using Twitter instead of parchment paper
The condition of intermittent brief spells of clarity
is sometimes diagnosed as schizophrenia. Just sayin.’
If true all govt agents need 18th century muskets and single shot pistols immediately. Plus swords.
this was a test for the “at the timed of ratification” line
I have a muzzle loader.
If we all started carrying muskets how long would it take
liberals to start crying about how dangerous and frightening it is?
3..2..1..
Whose test?
You'd think public hanging would be grandfathered in too. Those mean ol' white men sure did enough of that.
Imagine the crowds at Fenway.
Exactly. The decision below was asinine.
We could certainly do with some Capitol punishments.
It's surely one of the two...and maybe it's a tie.
The ruling is at http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf
It’s a surprisingly clear and simple explanation, unusual for modern courts.
See how Barney Frank would take to a day in the stocks with his pants at his ankles.
Wait a minute...
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.