Judge Rules Stun Guns Not Protected By 2nd Amendment; They’re “Modern Weapons”

In a recent court case, the Supreme Court of Massachusetts decided what should be covered as a method of protecting oneself. 
In a case where a woman was protecting herself from her former abuser with a stun gun, the Court decided that women should have to use firearms or pepper spray.
“Because the stun gun that the defendant possessed is both dangerous per se at common law and unusual, but was not in common use at the time of the enactment of the Second Amendment, we conclude that stun guns fall outside the protection of the Second Amendment,” the decision continued.
The court founded its ban in “the interest of public health, safety, or welfare,” but dismissed as “immaterial” the fact that weapons even more lethal than stun guns remain legal, writing, “Mathematical precision by the Legislature is not constitutionally required.”

The woman at the center of the case, Jaime Caetano, had been arrested for possessing a stun gun, but argued she needed it for self-defense against the abusive father of her children. She had used the stun gun to frighten him away from her workplace in the past.
The court ruled she should have applied for a gun permit or obtained some pepper spray instead.

Massachusetts already has some of the most draconian gun laws in the country.  Odds are Ms. Caetano wouldn’t even be able to get a license to carry as it all depends upon the mood of her local police chief.

Self-defense is a fundamental human right.  Clearly Massachusetts doesn’t believe in women (or anyone) practicing their rights.

Considering Massachusetts has a higher crime rate than neighboring New Hampshire, Vermont or Maine (all with less strict gun control laws), you’d think the court would be concerned about women protecting themselves.