TRY READING THE LAW: U.S. Supreme Court Rejects Weapons Ban in MA

Screen Shot 2016-03-21 at 6.23.18 PMThis is the best! Check it out.

The U.S. Supreme Court thought so little of the state of Massachusetts’ ban on stun guns that it issued a new ruling rejecting the ban and essentially telling the state to revisit its faulty, anti-Second Amendment reasoning. The law was so badly written the U.S. Supremes didn’t even see a reason to hear the full case and simply issued a general ruling slapping down the state court’s attempt to uphold the law making stun guns illegal.

Issuing what is called a per curiam decision, the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) told the state its ban on stun guns did not comport with recent rulings of the highest court–in particular the Heller decision. Per curiams occur when the high court simply rules directly without assigning the decision to a specific justice and are usually reserved for decisions that the justices feel are so obvious, so non-controversial, that no further discussion is needed.

At issue was the case titled Jamie Caetano v. Massachusetts, in which a woman who was being brutally beaten by an ex-boyfriend defended herself with a stun gun. Despite the fact that the device saved her life, police arrested the woman instead of her attacker because stun guns had been made illegal in the Commonwealth.

Trending: WATCH: City Inspector Demands Store Owner REMOVE U.S. Military Flags, Insults Veteran at Store

The stun gun ban carries with it a fine of up to $1,000 and a prison sentence of as much as two and a half years for possession of the banned item. The woman, though, maintained the electronic device should be covered under the Second Amendment because she was legitimately using it for self-protection.

Her case went to the Massachusetts Supreme Court and that body ruled against her saying she was guilty and insisting the state’s law banning stun guns was crafted properly. The woman appealed her case to the highest court in the land still maintaining that a stun gun ban was unconstitutional.

The SCOTUS agreed with the brutalized woman and noted that the state’s ban law was based on faulty constitutional reasoning.


Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.