HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » friendly_iconoclast » Journal
Page: 1


Profile Information

Member since: Fri Sep 8, 2006, 11:47 AM
Number of posts: 15,333

Journal Archives

The GOP Senators seem to have left a sentence out of their letter to Iran

"No family members of the undersigned will be taking part in any combat operations against you."
Posted by friendly_iconoclast | Wed Mar 11, 2015, 12:05 AM (7 replies)

They may be correct, but definitely *not* for this reason:

FWIW, I believe Massachusetts has every right to ban stun guns, but not because of
one of the reasons given...


SJC rules against woman in Ashland stun gun case

By Anamika Roy
Daily News Staff
Posted Mar. 2, 2015 at 6:48 PM

BOSTON - What started as a call to the Ashland Police for a possible shoplifting case may end up in the hands of the highest court in the country.

On Monday, the state Supreme Judicial Court ruled in a unanimous decision that the state’s ban on the possession of stun guns does not violate the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. That ruling upheld a conviction in which a woman was arrested outside an Ashland supermarket four years ago and charged with having a stun gun - which she claimed was for self defense - in her purse...

...In 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment guaranteed the right to possess a handgun for self-defense in the home. However, the SJC says in its opinion that ruling does not cover stun guns.

The court goes on to say that Caetano’s case falls outside the “core” of the Second Amendment in that Caetano was not using the stun gun to defend herself in her home. It calls stun guns a "dangerous and unusual weapon" that was not "in common use at the time of enactment” of the Second Amendment.

Anyone else see the problem here? Bueller?
(Please try to keep the special pleading to a minimum)

Posted by friendly_iconoclast | Wed Mar 4, 2015, 02:39 PM (9 replies)
Go to Page: 1