The Second Amendment expands, but maybe not by much

[Draggingtree]

Scotus: The Second Amendment expands, but maybe not by much

By Lyle Denniston on Mar 21, 2016 at 3:07 pm

Reopening, for the first time in eight years, the always heated controversy over what the Second Amendment means, the Supreme Court on Monday sent the states and Congress an uncertain message, but one that seemed to caution against putting new or different kinds of weapons beyond the people’s right to have and use them.

 

The Court decided the case of Caetano v. Massachusetts without full written or oral arguments, in a brief per curiam (“by the Court”) opinion that said the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court was wrong in the three reasons it offered for why the state could ban personal possession or use of a “stun gun” without violating the Second Amendment. A stun gun is a weapon that sends an electronic pulse that can temporarily disable a person as its target.

 

Two Justices filed a separate opinion, complaining that the Court’s opinion was “grudging” in its limited scope, and left open the possibility that the conviction of the Boston woman for violating the state ban might result in her being forever barred from having “arms for self-defense.” She obtained the weapon to ward off further attacks by an abusive boyfriend.