In a unanimous decision in the first gun-related case since Justice Antonin Scalia died, the U.S. Supreme Court slapped down (PDF) a Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision that asserted there was no constitutional right to own a stun gun.
The Court has held that “the Second Amendment ex- tends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 582 (2008), and that this “Second Amend- ment right is fully applicable to the States,” McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 750 (2010). In this case, the Su- preme Judicial Court of Massachusetts upheld a Massa- chusetts law prohibiting the possession of stun guns after examining “whether a stun gun is the type of weapon contemplated by Congress in 1789 as being protected by the Second Amendment.” 470 Mass. 774, 777, 26 N. E. 3d 688, 691 (2015).
Bring on the Light Sabers!
All you need to know about the 2016 presidential candidates in one picture.
http://bearingarms.com/need-know-2016-presidential-candidates-one-picture/
if a “Second Amend- ment right is fully applicable to the States” & extends to “…all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those not in existence at the time of the founding..” …. then how can states ban so-called ‘assault weapons”?
Because the libs renamed them ‘assault weapons’ so they’re no longer ‘bearable arms’.
Is what is was.
All arms are bearable, be it a letter opener, a 105mm howitzer, or a Los Angeles class submarine. And my right to do so shall not be infringed.