Privacy   |    Financial   |    Current Events   |    Self Defense   |    Miscellaneous   |    Letters To Editor   |    About Off The Grid News   |    Off The Grid Videos   |    Weekly Radio Show

The New Supreme Court Case That Could Take Away Your Second Amendment Rights

The Newest Supreme Court Case That Could Take Away Your Second Amendment Right

Image source: Pixabay.com

The US Supreme Court may take up a case soon that could lead to citizens being banned from owning stun guns and other non-lethal self-defense weapons.

At issue is a case called Caetano v. Massachusetts, in which Massachusetts’ highest court ruled that the Second Amendment right to bear arms does not apply to non-lethal weapons and that the state’s ban on them could stand. That case involved Jaime Caetano, a woman who was carrying a stun gun in her purse for protection from an abusive ex-boyfriend. The ruling was appealed to the Supreme Court, which has yet to determine if it will hear it.

The fact that a different court – the Michigan Court of Appeals – ruled that stun guns are protected under the Second Amendment only increases the chances the case will be heard. The Supreme Court is more likely to hear a case if there are divided rulings in lower courts.

The US Supreme Court has never ruled on whether the Second Amendment applies to non-lethal weapons like pepper spray and stun guns. In Massachusetts, even law-abiding citizens can face criminal charges for carrying a stun gun.

My Personal Defender: Low-Cost Way To Defend Yourself Against Low-Life Criminal Scum!

“The ability to possess a stun gun instead of a handgun is an important aspect of the right to keep and bear arms,” Caetano’s attorneys wrote in an appeal to the US Supreme Court. “Some people have religious or ethical compunctions about killing. Other religious and philosophical traditions, such as Judaism and Catholicism, believe that defenders ought to use the least violence necessary.”

The attorneys also noted that there are cases when less-lethal force is preferable.

“Still others might be reluctant to kill a particular potential attacker, for instance when a woman does not want to kill an abusive ex-husband because she does not want to have to explain to her children that she killed their father, even in self-defense,” the attorneys wrote. “Some might fear owning a gun because it might be misused by their children or by a suicidal roommate.”

The Massachusetts law, the brief said, deprives citizens of choice.

“Some people who do own guns may prefer to own both a firearm and a stun gun, so that they can opt for a nonlethal response whenever possible, resorting to lethal force only when absolutely necessary,” the attorneys wrote.

Hawaii, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York and Rhode Island all have laws against the ownership of at least one type of non-lethal weapon.

Do you believe stun guns and other types of non-lethal weapons should be banned? Share your thoughts in the section below:  

There’s A Trick To Navigating Federal And State Gun Regulations. Read More Here.

© Copyright Off The Grid News

20 comments

  1. The supreme court has been seeded with lots of socialist thinkers which use no common sense or consider natural law only liberalism, look at who put them there.
    If owning a weapon of any type makes an individual an outlaw then we should all become outlaws.

    • So that is why they reaffirmed the Second Amendment and clarified the term “militia” not as the military or national guard but adult citizens? Is that why they have struck down laws in Illinois and Calfornia that attempted to ban all handguns or making conceal carry impossible? Is that why the Supreme court struck down laws that prevented gun buyers from putchasing firearms outside the state they lived in?

      Your post proves two things:

      1. You are ignorant.
      2. You are proud of being ignorant.

  2. Of course, guns don’t have to be used lethally either in cases of self defense. But that’s not the way gun nuts think.

    • “But that’s not the way gun nuts think.”

      Tell that to police officers whom kill unarmed citizens, with the officer’s excuse of fearing that his/her life was threatened. A police officer is not there to protect and serve — they are there to maintain order. Needing protection from armed criminals is one matter… but who/what will protect us from armed, trigger happy police… the Courts of Law… Obama?

      You need to THINK outside the box regarding citizens’ gun rights and why the Second Amendment exists… but first, you will have to pull your head out of your box!

      • Other than the guy in Oregon all of the other police shootings that made lame stream news have been legitimate.

        Mike Brown beat up an Asian liquor store owner and everyone that said his hands where up also appeared on the liquor store robbery video.

        • That’s not true & even IF it were true Anubis, it’s still wrong because the cops are unconstitutional because of what they do & how they do it. They violate the Constitution everyday, long before they may have shot someone & murdered them. You sound like a cop apologist of which there are no shortages of today. Too bad more folks don’t agree with that anymore & see them for what they’re, the enemies, just as the politicians/fake reps are too.

      • Who protects us from the trigger happy cops? WE are supposed to Inretrospect. Not the illegitimate govt or it’s unjust courts. Cops only exist to protect the State from us who would go against it. They commit terrorism & criminal acts on a daily basis almost. Nobody can fight that by trusting the rogue govt at this point in our country. You can only fight that by looking at history, seeing that patriots in this country have attacked & ambushed cops alot in defense of liberty (see pre-Revolution days as well as during the Revolutionary War as the cops of that era were Redcoats) & fought them to reject the State’s belief that we must obey/submit to all laws, never-mind many of them are unjust & violent. What do you think the 2nd Amendment is for? It’s so we can shoot back against a rogue government & it’s agents, which are predominantly cops. Historically & lawfully, this is a fact.

      • Inretrospect, to answer your question, who protects us from the cops? WE are supposed to. We have a rogue govt, which includes the courts & cops. There’s no way around it. The 2nd Amendment exists mainly so we can shoot back & fight the govt when it becomes rogue. That includes it’s agents, which are cops, local & or federal. This is a matter of historical & lawful fact. We must be willing to suffer alot & even die if we expect to stop this rogue govt from becoming even more powerful. We must go against everyone in this country who support this rogue government. We must stand against all those who support the modern day Redcoats, aka, cops. The Redcoats did exactly what the cops do today, only our version is worse than the Redcoats were. They’re the enforcers who make it possible for this govt to impose it’s tyranny on us. Since the job of cops is to protect & make money for the State, then it stands to reason that our duty/right to use the 2A against them/the rogue govt is even more of a need at this point than any other since the Civil War. The amount of unjust violence against us & unjust laws being enforced/created/prosecuted daily is good reason for us to rebel against the establishment that rejects the Constitution & our liberties.
        See the Battle of Athens, TN, in 1946 for the 2A in action. Those patriots went against the LEO’s in their county & fought hard. That wasn’t all that long ago. We can do the same today, we got the tech, the arms, the law on our side, the manpower, the individuals who are against this tyrannical govt, etc. So to not do anything meaningful is laziness on our part.

  3. The U.S. Constitution does NOT belong the the USAOC! It belongs to the people! SCOTUS just like the rest of the USAOC are NWO Communists. The United States Constitution FOR the PEOPLE is our protection from the USAOC .

  4. The supreme court is not the deciding factor in cases like this or any other, nor do they write law. Theirs is only an opinion.
    If they weren’t so corrupt, they would be believable.

  5. I agree with wally58

  6. There is many a court ruling that says otherwise and some of these court ruling’s when it happened, we still have some of the founding statesman and people that fought for this right still living, The meaning of these rights was enforced as written! We have the right to own, bear and carry Arms/Weapons. It was understood that government cannot ask fees and or issue license to exercise any constitutional provision.

    So far to date all these anti weapons laws have done nothing but create a state of anarchy, where someone commits a crime and its use to create more anti arms law to further a state of anarchy to create even more restrictions on the constitutional right.

  7. The Second Amendment doesn’t specify “firearms”…..just “arms”…..big open field there, and one NOT open to debate.

    • It goes further than that.
      “… the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
      Infringe =
      in·fringedin·fring·ing
      transitive verb

      1 : to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another

      2 obsolete : defeat, frustrate

      Any attempt to prevent the people from arming themselves is an encroachment. All of the current laws are encroachments.
      Note the “obsolete” definition, which would have been the meaning of the word at the time the 2nd amendment was debated. Defeat and frustrate are stronger terms than encroach.
      Any of the Supreme Court justices who would vote in favour of preventing the people from arming themselves, ought to be impeached then tried for treason.

      • Curmudgeon, you defined the 2nd Amendment brilliantly, defining the meaning of the word “infringed”. You’re absolutely correct in stating that the “laws” addressing gun ownership come under the “infringement” term; and, thus, violate the 2nd Amendment.
        Indeed, any attempt to prevent people from arming themselves is an encroachment, another word for infringement. The 2nd Amendment is crystal clear when it comes to arming oneself. The statement “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” couldn’t be any clearer.
        Also, the Supreme Court has no authority to make law. The case of Obamacare revealed SCOTUS violation of that law. The US Constitution specified the division of powers between the three Branches of the Central Govt .. the powers of making law to the Legislative, the powers of enforcing law to the Executive and the powers of interpreting law to the Judiciary. Thus, the SCOTUS is limited to interpreting the law, not making law .. that belongs to Congress.

      • I agree its are GOD given right its not a right that the government gives us ,these are MORAL LAWS

  8. There is no common sense anymore in the US government or the Supreme court. You would think that a weapon that did not kill would also be allowed and actually applauded. We have allowed our society to be ruined by the mind of lawyers who live to question everything in miniscule. We should all realize by now that SCOTUS is completely corrupt and out of their socialists mind when they allowed Obama care. That decision alone should tell you that the supreme court is worthless and paid for. States need to be the sole arbiter of the laws within their borders. SCOTUS has proven it has no right to exist anymore because it definitely does NOT follow the constitution.

  9. well people have died as the result of being electrocuted by a stun gun by the police, so it’s lethal, there is also a death attributed to pepper spray so it can be lethal as well,.. hell a pencil can be lethal if one is motivated to use it as a weapon!

  10. THEY WILL TRY
    THEY WILL GET KILLED

Leave a Reply to carnac123 Cancel reply

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

*