Go lethal or go home?

[vaskidmark]

Woman buys/carries a stun gun as protection against her abusive ex-boyfriend.

In defiance of the Mass law outlawing stun guns.

Gets arrested and found guilty. Appeals based on claim that stun guns come under the protection of the Second Amendment.

http://www.mass.gov/courts/docs/sjc/...ions/11718.pdf ( Commonwealth v Jamie Caetano )

http://www.mass.gov/courts/docs/sjc/reporter-of-decisions/new-opinions/11718.pdf - fixing link

This is going to be interesting as it passes through the Mass courts. If she loses at the State level the journey through the Federal courts ought to be even more interesting.

stay safe.

[Firethorn]

This is going to be interesting as it passes through the Mass courts. If she loses at the State level the journey through the Federal courts ought to be even more interesting.

I certainly hope that the NRA tosses a couple of the dollars I gave them towards her defense*

By the way, your link is broken. 
Also, do you realize that it dates back to July 2014? Amicus announcement



*I'm broke at the moment.

[vaskidmark]

Thanks for the better link.  What I had was copied from my source (Instapundit) and worked when I put it up.

And yes, the case is in the beginnings of the appeal process, so the Amicus Announcement is the latest action.

But aside from that, what's your considered opinnion on how the appeal is based and what the probable state-level result will be?  Then the federal level(s)?

stay safe.

[Firethorn]

Thanks for the better link.  What I had was copied from my source (Instapundit) and worked when I put it up.

I think that it's likely you copied the text of the link, and not the actual link.  If you look at yours, it as the '...' of an abbreviation in there, which isn't 'ever' going to work short of some websites smart enough to search for what it thinks you were looking for and give you that.

If you still have the instapundit website, try copying the 'link location' rather than the text.

Hmm..  Instapundit was the clue I needed: Court case.

But aside from that, what's your considered opinnion on how the appeal is based and what the probable state-level result will be?  Then the federal level(s)?

First, reading the pdf, but not knowing the wording, I looked up, the judges that heard the case in the PDF are the Mass. Supremes, so the Massachusetts supreme court upheld her conviction.  "We hold that a stun gun is not the type of weapon that is eligible for Second Amendment protection, see Heller, supra at 622, and we affirm the defendant's conviction."

The next step is, of course, federal.

Anyways, going up to federal level, I'd expect some tests:
1.  Is a 'stun gun' considered an arm?  Sounds like the State is treating it as so(lumping it in with real guns), so the court may just 'take them at their word'.
2.  If it is an arm, does the banning of an entire category of arms violate the 2nd amendment, especially when said arms are even more 'not suitable for military use' than short barreled shotguns?
3.  As a possible 'side argument', it's possible that the judges may instead examine it, not from a 2nd amendment perspective, but from a 'right of self defense' perspective.  Is the state allowed to ban her a non-lethal means of self defense, especially when the means for lethal self-defense has been upheld?

edit:  I'm actually reading the decision now, as opposed to merely skimming it earlier to figure out which court it was from, and what the decision was.  Right now I'm noting that Heller mentioned self-defense explicitly, that handguns the #1 choice for this, and they were addressing a blanket prohibition.  I see a lot of parallels with the stun-gun prohibition that Massachusetts has.