Considerations

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed an anti-gun decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, and upheld the 2008 Heller decision in the process. The Massachusetts case involved a 4’11” woman who was being threatened by an ex-boyfriend, who was nearly a foot taller. She pulled a stun gun and chased him away.

While that was good news for her, this is where things got dicey. Her possession of the stun gun violated the Bay State’s ban on “electrical weapons.”

She was tried and convicted, with the state supreme court ultimately holding that her possession of a stun gun was not protected by the Second Amendment since it represented technology that could not have been foreseen in 1791.

But what about speech that is transmitted via computers, radio and TV? Is that not protected by the First Amendment since this technology did not exist in the eighteenth century?

This was the exact point made by Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas in their concurring opinion:

Electronic stun guns are no more exempt from the Second Amendment’s protections, simply because they were unknown to the First Congress, than electronic communications are exempt from the First Amendment, or electronic imaging devices are exempt from the Fourth Amendment.

Do you agree or disagree with this? Though, I am an advocate for self-defense, I do not consider any defense device (Defense spray, Taser, Stun Gun.) an arm. I kinda agree with defense devices not being covered by the 2nd amendment, HOWEVER, I do NOT think it should be illegal to own and use a defense device in any state. An individual should have full range of freedom to decide on their defense options. Be it arms, improvised weapons or defense devices.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Considerations