“For years women (and, yes, far more often than not it was women) have had to deal with the lengthy process required simply to possess a can of mace for self-defense. It means applying for a Class B Firearms Identification Card from the local police department, being fingerprinted, and providing references. Surely, possessing a stun gun ought to be at least that rigorous — and probably more so.” That’s the current state of self-defense in Massachusetts, where residents have to practically give blood in order to arm themselves with a simple can of mace.
That’s probably why the editors of the Boston Globe are so torqued about the recent court decision that will finally allow those benighted Bay State simpletons (AKA, citizens) the right to own stun guns.
In its ruling that stun guns are protected by the Second Amendment, the Massachusetts high court gave the state 60 days to decide where to draw the line…who can and who can’t be allowed the awesome responsibility that is TASER ownership. As well as where they can carry them. From the court’s opinion:
“. . . Restrictions may be placed on the categories of persons who may possess them, licenses may be required for their possession, and those licensed to possess them may be barred from carrying them in sensitive places, such as schools and government buildings. But the absolute prohibition. . . is inconsistent with the Second Amendment,” he wrote.
Massachusetts apparently has an especially poorly educated and incompetent citizenry. They’re so feckless and irresponsible that their betters in the state legislature have to work continually to keep dangerous tools away from most of them if at all possible.
In fact, the court noted that “the Legislature was so concerned with the risk of (stun guns’) misuse that, in 1986, it initially barred all individuals, including law enforcement officers, from possessing electrical weapons.”
So concerned were Bay State politicians that they decided even cops weren’t competent enough to wield them.
It wasn’t until 2004 that the law was changed to permit police to use the stun guns.
It’s true, electroshock weapons are called ‘less-lethal’ for a reason. They can, in fact, kill in certain rare instances. Which is why the Globe’s editorial board thinks it’s so critical to limit the number of
Massholes Bay Staters who will be allowed to own this kind of “serious firepower” (their words).
The licensing process must reflect that potential lethality. This isn’t a can of mace or pepper spray. It also ought to focus legislative minds on how essential it is to simply get this done — before the clock runs down.
Where do you think the great minds who make up the Massachusetts legislature will draw the line?