Mass. high court, citing guidance from US Supreme Court, strikes down stun gun ban

[Sniper 6,372]

Sharply reversing course, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court on Tuesday overturned a state law banning civilian possession of stun guns.

“We conclude that the absolute prohibition against civilian possession of stun guns . . . is in violation of the Second Amendment,” the court said.

In 2015, the state’s highest court had ruled that the ban did not violate the Second Amendment. But in 2016, the US Supreme Court ruled that the three explanations the state court had offered for its ruling were inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s rulings. The Supreme Court is the final arbiter for all US constitutional questions.

But in a new case decided Tuesday, Jorge Ramirez v. Commonwealth, the SJC acceded to the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Constitution’s Second Amendment.

“Having received guidance from the Supreme Court . . . we now conclude that stun guns are ‘arms’ within the protection of the Second Amendment. Therefore, under the Second Amendment, the possession of stun guns may be regulated, but not absolutely banned,” Chief Justice Ralph Gants wrote for the unanimous court.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2018/04/17/mass-high-court-citing-guidance-from-supreme-court-strikes-down-stun-gun-ban/5t63TI0wWuJmMSRM1sop4N/story.html

Wasn't the NJ ruling tied someway to this Mass. legal activity??

 

[voyager9 3,434]

There’s the rub

Therefore, under the Second Amendment, the possession of stun guns may be regulated, but not absolutely banned,

[Sniper 6,372]

1 hour ago, voyager9 said:

There’s the rub

 

OK, here's more from the article:

...." “Restrictions may be placed on the categories of persons who may possess them, licenses may be required for their possession, and those licensed to possess them may be barred from carrying them in sensitive places, such as schools. But the absolute prohibition in [state law] that bars all civilians from possessing or carrying stun guns, even in their home, is inconsistent with the Second Amendment and is therefore unconstitutional,” the court said. "

Sounds like they want to apply the same standards as handguns??

 

[voyager9 3,434]

1 hour ago, Sniper22 said:

OK, here's more from the article:

...." “Restrictions may be placed on the categories of persons who may possess them, licenses may be required for their possession, and those licensed to possess them may be barred from carrying them in sensitive places, such as schools. But the absolute prohibition in [state law] that bars all civilians from possessing or carrying stun guns, even in their home, is inconsistent with the Second Amendment and is therefore unconstitutional,” the court said. "

Sounds like they want to apply the same standards as handguns??

 

I agree the wording makes it sound that way. Unfortunately that doesn’t necessarily help the case against further handgun, mag, or AWB restrictions.