5 ms·

A sympathetic defendant doesn't really matter as a ruling would affect everyone, including some less sympathetic people. The quote of the opinion makes a good c

by andreyf 12y ago

A sympathetic defendant doesn't really matter as a ruling would affect everyone, including some less sympathetic people. The quote of the opinion makes a good case that although by some measures electrocuting someone with 50k volts is less dangerous than poking a hole in them with a bullet, it may still be "rationally [banned] in the interest of public health, safety, or welfare". I don't think she'll get very far if she's going to keep arguing she should be allowed to have something that's not a gun because of the Second Amendment.

CapitalistCartr 12y ago
The Supreme Court has ruled before that the Second Amendment isn't limited to guns. This case is nearly certain to be overturned. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/09/05/amicus-brief-supporting-the-second-amendment-right-to-own-and-carry-a-stun-in-massachusetts/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014...
- jessaustin 12y ago
  Indeed, it ruled quite recently, in Heller: Before addressing the verbs “keep” and “bear,” we interpret their object: “Arms.” The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity. Thus, the most natural reading of “keep Arms” in the Second Amendment is to “have weapons.” The Massachusetts court, emphasizing "military use", seems to be just thumbing its nose at SC.
- Glyptodon 12y ago
  I sure hope so.
- andreyf 12y ago
  Interesting. Thanks for the link!
- andreyf 12y ago
  I think this is the weakest part of his argument: > Thus, "dangerous and unusual" weapons are historically excluded from the scope of the right [to bear arms], but this exception, by the Court's own words, is indeed limited to weapons that are not only "unusual" but also "dangerous." Moreover, because all weapons are “dangerous” to some degree, the reference to “dangerous … weapons” must mean weapons that are more dangerous than the norm — logically meaning weapons that are unusually dangerous. I don't think that "dangerous and unusual" is the same as "unusually dangerous".

by andreyf 12y ago

CapitalistCartr 12y ago

The Supreme Court has ruled before that the Second Amendment isn't limited to guns. This case is nearly certain to be overturned. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/09/05/amicus-brief-supporting-the-second-amendment-right-to-own-and-carry-a-stun-in-massachusetts/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014...

jessaustin 12y ago
Indeed, it ruled quite recently, in Heller: Before addressing the verbs “keep” and “bear,” we interpret their object: “Arms.” The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity. Thus, the most natural reading of “keep Arms” in the Second Amendment is to “have weapons.” The Massachusetts court, emphasizing "military use", seems to be just thumbing its nose at SC.
Glyptodon 12y ago
I sure hope so.
andreyf 12y ago
Interesting. Thanks for the link!
andreyf 12y ago
I think this is the weakest part of his argument: > Thus, "dangerous and unusual" weapons are historically excluded from the scope of the right [to bear arms], but this exception, by the Court's own words, is indeed limited to weapons that are not only "unusual" but also "dangerous." Moreover, because all weapons are “dangerous” to some degree, the reference to “dangerous … weapons” must mean weapons that are more dangerous than the norm — logically meaning weapons that are unusually dangerous. I don't think that "dangerous and unusual" is the same as "unusually dangerous".