this post was submitted on 30 Aug 2024
2 points (100.0% liked)
Law
399 readers
5 users here now
Discussion about legal topics, centered around United States
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This is in line with one of my favorite cases, Caetanto vs. Massachusetts.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caetano_v._Massachusetts
Woman got a stun gun to protect herself from an abusive ex. Was arrested for having the stun gun. Cops argued that the 2nd amendnent didn't apply because stun guns didn't exist back then.
Supreme court ruled:
The term "bearable arms" was defined in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) and includes any ""[w]eapo[n] of offence" or "thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands," that is "carr[ied] . . . for the purpose of offensive or defensive action." 554 U. S., at 581, 584 (internal quotation marks omitted)."[10]