Hilarious: What You Should Do When The Government Says You Don’t Need a Gun
The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has delivered a decision in favor of a woman who used a stun gun to defend herself from a brutal physical attack by an ex-boyfriend in violation of a Massachusetts state law banning stun guns.
Jamie Caetano was arrested by police authorities instead of her attacker because stun guns were prohibited for use – even as a defensive weapon by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Ms. Caetano was placed into handcuffs even though the device probably saved her life.
The Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled against M. Caetano, claiming that electronic stun guns were exempt from the protection of the Second Amendment because the weapons were unknown to the First Congress. The Massachusetts Court declared that stun guns were “dangerous and unusual” devices in part because they were “a thoroughly modern invention” not in everyday use at the enactment of the Second Amendment.
The SCOTUS ruled that the law was so badly written that the Supreme Court didn’t even see a reason to hear the full case and simply issued a general ruling slapping down the Massachusetts Supreme Court’s attempt to uphold the law-making stun guns illegal.
This is an incredibly vital judgment since it functions as an alert to every left-leaning state. Governors, legislatures, and the courts cannot simply create anti-gun legislation without consideration of common sense and legal precedents.
Source: The Federalist Papers