Slashdot Mirror
Do You Have a Right To Use Electrical Weapons?
An anonymous reader writes: David Cravets points out a growing debate in U.S. constitutional law: does the second amendment grant the same rights regarding electrical weapons as it does for traditional firearms? A Massachusetts ban on private ownership of stun-guns is being considered by the Supreme Court, and it's unclear whether such ownership has constitutional protection. The state's top court didn't think so: "... although modern handguns were not in common use at the time of enactment of the Second Amendment, their basic function has not changed: many are readily adaptable to military use in the same way that their predecessors were used prior to the enactment. A stun gun, by contrast, is a thoroughly modern invention (PDF). Even were we to view stun guns through a contemporary lens for purposes of our analysis, there is nothing in the record to suggest that they are readily adaptable to use in the military." The petitioner is asking the court (PDF) to clarify that the Second Amendment covers non-lethal weapons used for self-defense. Constitutional law expert Eugene Volokh agrees: "Some people have religious or ethical compunctions about killing. ... Some adherents to these beliefs may therefore conclude that fairly effective non-deadly defensive tools are preferable to deadly tools."
Which if you do research, you will learn did not mean "regulations" as we use the term today. It meant "well trained/equipped"...
Prohibition used to be constitutional.
Was it right when it was constitutional?
Artillery is ordnance not arms. Explosives were not considered personal arms by the framers.
You're on the wrong point.
"Well regulated" means "trained" or "skilled" in that context at that time. The SCOTUS has already ruled on that.
And "militia" means most male citizens (between certain ages).
But neither of those are an issue because the last part says:
And the SCOTUS has also ruled on who "the people" are in that context.