Massachusetts’s stun gun ban will in all probability now be overturned–although the brief opinion from SCOTUS doesn’t require it, but rather demands that the decision upholding it be reconsidered. The judges in Massachusetts had said that stun guns don’t get protection because they were invented after the Constitution was written–a ridiculous position that they would not take for any other right.
Most interesting all this, however, is that the opinion was “per curium,” or “for the court”–meaning there were no dissenters. I find that to be very interesting given that we know some current members of the Court dissented from Heller. Also, of course, this decision opens the door to all manner of self-defense options receiving Second Amendment protection, including, of course, knives, pepper spray, expandable batons, and so on.
It’s always hard to guess what the courts will do in the future but at least we got another good decision out of them.
stoneslinger
That’s good for Massachusetts, but SCOTUS refused to address the law that bans firearms in the post office. Knowing the law, I’ve left my carry in the car wherever I have to visit, but apparently I’m breaking the law as it is illegal to even have a firearm locked up in the car. Also, it seems that if I go to the restaurant next door, I’m still in violation.
http://bearingarms.com/scotus-goes-postal-says-cant-carry-guns/
Rob Lyman
They will never overturn the USPS rules–or any “gun free zone” law–even if they someday take a case about them. Such laws are thoroughly stupid, but the only solution is winning elections, over and over.
My favorite of this genre, though, is the national park rules. It’s legal to carry in a national park, assuming it would be legal in the state where the park is located. But it’s illegal to carry inside the visitor’s center. Because that makes perfect sense, right?