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

[friendly_iconoclast]

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

http://ashland.wickedlocal.com/article/20150302/NEWS/150309328

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)

[guillaumeb]

1. musket sales will rise

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.

[friendly_iconoclast]

3. I trust you posted that with a quill pen

After all, computers were not "in common use at the time of enactment" of the First Amendment

Then again, neither was women's suffrage, marriage equality, and a whole host of other rights

State religions and slavery were hunky-dory, too- Massachusetts had both well into the 19th
Century...

[guillaumeb]

7. please wait, i must refill the lamp with whale oil

interesting bit of legalese there. Not sure the SCOTUS would agree with the logic

[friendly_iconoclast]

9. Put more simply: Does the 1st Amendment apply to Internet postings?

If one uses the same standard that the MA Supreme Judicial Court just did, it does not.

[sarisataka]

2. Where to begin

although it could become interesting. Is a stun gun an arm?

and if such non-lethal self defense methods are not arms therefore protected under the 2nd amendment how does that affect the argument of you don't need a handgun to protect yourself because you have other options?

[friendly_iconoclast]

4. I was going more for "not in common use at the time of enactment" angle

It was pointed out elsewhere that one can obtain Mace or pepper spray without a license,
and both of those can be lethal.

And if "readily adaptable to military use" is the criterion (see article at the link),
I'd like a Smith & Wesson M&P in .45 ACP...

[sarisataka]

5. That is why I hit my head against

a brick wall (a materiel in common use at that time)

I am sure the writer of that opinion did so using a computer, completely missing the irony.

If "readily adaptable to military use" is the accepted criteria, then those who hope for magazine limits or bans on certain types of rifles have lost any chance of getting such laws implemented.

[friendly_iconoclast]

6. I noticed that, too...

[NutmegYankee]

8. I love the strict historical argument.

It's funny to ask if we can restrict news organizations on the Internet, because it's called "freedom of the press" and no printing press is used for Internet articles.