Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/uspatri1/public_html/index.php:32) in /home/uspatri1/public_html/wp-content/plugins/wp-super-cache/wp-cache-phase2.php on line 1197
Survival Gear: Supreme Court Backs Stun Gun Ownership | U.S. PATRIOT NEWS & REVIEWS

Survival Gear: Supreme Court Backs Stun Gun Ownership

Survivalists know that they need access to weapons if they wish to survive and, for some survivalists (and citizens, in general), the possession of stun guns is on their minds. However, the laws on stun guns have been confused, at best. But there may be some good news coming out as the U.S. Supreme Court recently supported the rights of individuals to carry stun guns for self-defense. The decision was unanimous. The test case involved a woman who had been convicted of carrying an electrical weapon (stun gun) in a parking lot in the state of Massachusetts.

At the core of the Court’s decision was the Constitution’s Second Amendment: the right of citizens to possess guns. The reason the Court sided with the woman (and gun owners, in general) was that the state of Massachusetts had used “faulty reasoning” when it tried to uphold the state’s ban on possession of stun guns. In their decision, the Court said that the state opposed the famous 2008 Supreme Court ruling in which the Court said the Constitution protects individual rights to possess guns.

TaserIn its written opinion, the Court wrote: “The explanation the Massachusetts court offered for upholding the law contradicts this court’s precedent.” Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito went farther in their written concurrence saying that the Massachusetts ruling “poses a grave threat to the fundamental right of self-defense.” It went on to say: “The commonwealth of Massachusetts was either unable or unwilling to do what was necessary to protect Jaime Caetano, so she was forced to protect herself.”

The case was based on what happened to Jaime Caetano. She said during her state court case that she was only protecting herself from her abusive ex-boyfriend. While she was convicted, she did not serve any jail time. This ruling is important because it brings to light certain laws on stun guns that are currently in force in at least five states. More clarity is expected from states over the next year or so.

Disclaimer: The content in this article is the opinion of the writer and does not necessarily reflect the policies or opinions of US Patriot Tactical.

Robert Partain

Robert Partain has been a professional writer for over 25 years. He spent ten years on active duty in the Army working as a medic and training NCO. While he covers any topic associated with military life, he specializes in writing about legislation that can affect active duty service members and veterans. Robert currently lives in the small town of Arab, Alabama.
Robert Partain
0 Shares

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *