I never thought I'd see that kind on unanimity from the current court, but there you are. The case at issue was from Massachusetts and ruled that a stun gun was a "dangerous and unusual weapon not in general use at the time of writing of the second amendment".
Scotus seemed to think that "in general use" meant "currently in general use" and overturned the conviction. Score one for the good guys.D'wife commented that if she were dealing with a "violent and abusive" person, a stun gun would be low on her list of choices, but we're talking about Massachusetts here where a criminals life is more valuable than yours.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment