Here’s an interesting one for you:
The highest court in Massachusetts is being asked to decide whether a state law that prohibits private citizens from possessing stun guns infringes on their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.
In an unusual twist, the Supreme Judicial Court is also being asked to examine whether the Second Amendment right to defend yourself in your own home applies in the case of a homeless person.Jaime Caetano, a homeless woman, was convicted of violating the state ban after police found a stun gun in her purse during a supermarket shoplifting investigation. She appealed, arguing that a stun gun falls within the meaning of “arms” under the Second Amendment and that self-defense outside the home is also protected.
Prosecutors argue that the Second Amendment does not establish a constitutional right to own a stun gun.
Oral arguments are scheduled Tuesday.
Since the 2nd Amendment mentions arms, one could argue that knives, swords, and even stun guns are protected, not to mention firearms as well. So while I don’t support shoplifting, I will support Jamie’s right to keep and bear stun guns.
Shame on Massachusetts for being so irrational that they would ban a harmless thing like a stun gun. I guess they prefer women like Jamie to get beaten, raped, and murdered.