https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/03/21/supreme-court-zaps-massachusetts-stun-gun-opinion/

This is an interesting opinion that is ultimately about the Second Amendment and not just limited to stun guns. First, note that it is per curiam, and presumably unanimous. That means Breyer, et al joined in. This decision reinforces both the viability of Heller and the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense. It also disposes of any argument that the Second Amendment only applies to arms that were in existence at the time the Second Amendment was enacted.

http://www.insidenova.com/headlines/man-sentenced-for-teen-s-murder-at-the-cut-near/article_332faaea-ea5e-11e5-b7bc-ab4a715b29e0.html

I see a lot of comments about the fact that we need stricter gun controls laws and that will help cut down on gun violence. The problem is the criminals determined to commit crimes and who aren't going to worry about whether they should or should not have a firearm. Here we have a guy who was on bond for prior violent offenses and yet still used a firearm to shoot someone 6 times in the back and once in the head. He wasn't deterred by the existing gun laws that barred him from owning a firearm. And he only received a 50 year sentence for taking the life of another in a robbery/shooting when he already had existing violent crime convictions, which to me it too lenient a sentence.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/03/14/concealed-weapon-owner-shoots-hatchet-wielding-attacker-in-wash-7-eleven/?hpid=hp_no-name_morning-mix-story-b-duplicate%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

Another example of the fact that guns save lives when used properly. Thankfully we have the Second Amendment.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/son-kills-mothers-attacker-in-virginias-spotsylvania-county-police-say/2016/03/08/f45d9600-e59a-11e5-a6f3-21ccdbc5f74e_story.html

Two cases that are of interest to those who advocate for the individual right to keep and bear arms are kicking around in my neck of the woods. The first involves the District of Columbia's law that requires a concealed carry applicant to show "good reason" for needing to carry. A federal district court judge ruled yesterday that DC could continue to enforce the law while a lawsuit challenging the law's constitutionality was pending. The plaintiffs immediately appealed to the DC Circuit Court. Story here - https://www.channelone.com/news_post/judge-sides-with-dc-in-ongoing-lawsuit-over-gun-law/

And late last week the Fourth Circuit agreed to an en banc rehearing of a panel decision from a month or so ago that held Maryland's "assault weapon" ban should be reviewed under a "strict scrutiny" standard, the most demanding level of judicial review. Other federal courts have applied a less demanding standard of review and have upheld similar laws. Since the court accepted en banc review I expect it to hold that a less demanding standard applies. Store here - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/assault-weapons-maryland_us_56d9ed4ce4b0000de4048c82

The Times had an editorial a few days ago attacking the PLCAA and arguing in favor of the lawsuit filed by family members of the Sandy Hook victims against Remington. Although this one wasn't completely inaccurate, the Times referred to the weapon used as capable of "rapid burst" fire, which means the Times staff is either being intentionally misleading or isn't doing the research necessary to understand the topic on which they opine.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/03/05/opinion/the-right-to-sue-the-gun-industry.html?_r=0&referer=https://www.google.com/