4 ms·

This judgment will almost certainly be overturned by higher courts. The "right to bear arms" has never been interpreted by the S.C. as the right to bear "lethal

by nicobn 12y ago

This judgment will almost certainly be overturned by higher courts. The "right to bear arms" has never been interpreted by the S.C. as the right to bear "lethal arms", nor the right to bear "military" arms. The S.C., in its recent Heller judgment, interprets "arms" as "weapons".

bradleyjg 12y ago
Heller contained this paragraph: We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” See 4 Blackstone 148–149 (1769); 3 B. Wilson, Works of the Honourable James Wilson 79 (1804); J. Dunlap, The New-York Justice 8 (1815); C. Humphreys, A Compendium of the Common Law in Force in Kentucky 482 (1822); 1 W. Russell, A Treatise on Crimes and Indictable Misdemeanors 271–272 (1831); H. Stephen, Summary of the Criminal Law 48 (1840); E. Lewis, An Abridgment of the Criminal Law of the United States 64 (1847); F. Wharton, A Treatise on the Criminal Law of the United States 726 (1852). See also State v. Langford, 10 N. C. 381, 383–384 (1824); O’Neill v. State, 16 Ala. 65, 67 (1849); English v. State, 35 Tex. 473, 476 (1871); State v. Lanier, 71 N. C. 288, 289 (1874). The Massachusetts court found that electrical weapons are "unusual" and "dangerous per se". The US Supreme Court, which is the only court that may overturn this ruling, might disagree, but it's hardly a slam dunk.
- bitwize 12y ago
  Cops commonly use tasers to subdue suspects. Is that a common enough use of an electrical weapon? Ultimately it doesn't matter what the SC thinks. It's still pretty much illegal to own a gun in eastern Massachusetts. Banners gonna ban.
  - CognitiveLens 12y ago
    Not sure what you mean that it doesn't matter what the SC thinks - if they rule that states cannot ban the use of stun guns, then the states have to comply. What workarounds are there?
    - extra88 12y ago
      Instead of an outright ban, a state can so heavily regulate ownership to ensure very people actually do.
    - bitwize 12y ago
      They can pass regulations that make owning, manufacturing, or selling such a weapon a pain in the ass. There's a whole category of crimes that automatically turn into much more serious crimes when you append "...with a deadly weapon" to the original crime. The government can arrest people and charge them with a trivial crime that turns into a felony because the suspect was carrying a weapon. Or they could just do what they already do with guns: require a permit to carry the thing and then simply refuse to issue permits. As I said, guns are effectively illegal in the Boston area, and Heller did fuck all to change that.
  - andreyf 12y ago
    "Cops commonly use Y" does not contradict "Y is unusual for someone to own". For example, cops commonly use disposable handcuffs, but it would be unusual for a non-cop to own them.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

by nicobn 12y ago

bradleyjg 12y ago

Heller contained this paragraph: We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” See 4 Blackstone 148–149 (1769); 3 B. Wilson, Works of the Honourable James Wilson 79 (1804); J. Dunlap, The New-York Justice 8 (1815); C. Humphreys, A Compendium of the Common Law in Force in Kentucky 482 (1822); 1 W. Russell, A Treatise on Crimes and Indictable Misdemeanors 271–272 (1831); H. Stephen, Summary of the Criminal Law 48 (1840); E. Lewis, An Abridgment of the Criminal Law of the United States 64 (1847); F. Wharton, A Treatise on the Criminal Law of the United States 726 (1852). See also State v. Langford, 10 N. C. 381, 383–384 (1824); O’Neill v. State, 16 Ala. 65, 67 (1849); English v. State, 35 Tex. 473, 476 (1871); State v. Lanier, 71 N. C. 288, 289 (1874). The Massachusetts court found that electrical weapons are "unusual" and "dangerous per se". The US Supreme Court, which is the only court that may overturn this ruling, might disagree, but it's hardly a slam dunk.

bitwize 12y ago
Cops commonly use tasers to subdue suspects. Is that a common enough use of an electrical weapon? Ultimately it doesn't matter what the SC thinks. It's still pretty much illegal to own a gun in eastern Massachusetts. Banners gonna ban.
- CognitiveLens 12y ago
  Not sure what you mean that it doesn't matter what the SC thinks - if they rule that states cannot ban the use of stun guns, then the states have to comply. What workarounds are there?
  - extra88 12y ago
    Instead of an outright ban, a state can so heavily regulate ownership to ensure very people actually do.
  - bitwize 12y ago
    They can pass regulations that make owning, manufacturing, or selling such a weapon a pain in the ass. There's a whole category of crimes that automatically turn into much more serious crimes when you append "...with a deadly weapon" to the original crime. The government can arrest people and charge them with a trivial crime that turns into a felony because the suspect was carrying a weapon. Or they could just do what they already do with guns: require a permit to carry the thing and then simply refuse to issue permits. As I said, guns are effectively illegal in the Boston area, and Heller did fuck all to change that.
- andreyf 12y ago
  "Cops commonly use Y" does not contradict "Y is unusual for someone to own". For example, cops commonly use disposable handcuffs, but it would be unusual for a non-cop to own them.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]