Supreme Court suggests stun guns should be protected by Second Amendment 

Posted by | March 22, 2016 07:11 | Filed under: Politics


The Supreme Court on Monday suggested the Second Amendment, which protects gun ownership in America, should be extended to stun guns. The ruling gives a boost to Arizona-based Taser International, which makes the eponymous Taser used by police departments across the country. In a unanimous opinion, the justices wiped a Massachusetts court ruling that upheld the…

(more…)

By: Alan

Alan Colmes is the publisher of Liberaland.

4 responses to Supreme Court suggests stun guns should be protected by Second Amendment 

  1. Larry Schmitt March 22nd, 2016 at 08:14

    Yes, who will speak up for the poor defenseless stun gun? First they come for your stun gun, then your black jack, will your brass knuckles be next? Where will it end?

  2. Mike March 22nd, 2016 at 09:11

    The right side of the court just contradicted itself…

    Alito said…“To make matters worse, the Commonwealth chose to deploy its prosecutorial resources to prosecute and convict her of a criminal offense for arming herself with a nonlethal weapon that may well have saved her life.”

    In DC v Heller, Alito concurs with Scalia when he writes “… Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

    MA did not “make matters worse…” MA had every right to arrest her for carrying a concealed weapon and can continue to make it illegal for her to carry such a weapon…all that crap about “… arming herself with a nonlethal weapon that may well have saved her life.” is right wing hyperbole added purely for dramatic effect.

    And just who decided to call a stun gun non-lethal…??? More than 700 people have died from stun guns…Less lethal might be a better choice of words.

    Homelessness presents certain problems with gun ownership. Do we want to allow a transient population to roam the streets armed to the teeth…??? A large number of states have weapon regulations that would make compliance difficult if not impossible…

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

  3. amersham46 March 22nd, 2016 at 12:03

    Now a cattle prod in every pocket

  4. bpollen March 22nd, 2016 at 21:25

    So.. background checks? Mandatory registration?

Leave a Reply