In colonial America, stun guns did not exist, but are useful today to many women for self-defense. In this case, the woman was carrying this type of gun as protection against a much bigger ex-boyfriend, who was continuing to bother her despite multiple restraining orders. Evidence in this case demonstrated that on at least one occasion her possession of the stun gun was successful in causing her ex-boyfriend to back off. But Massachusetts has criminalized the mere possession of a stun gun, and the woman was convicted simply for having one. The state supreme court then affirmed her conviction on the theory that because stun guns did not exist when the Second Amendment was enacted, stun guns are not protected by the Second Amendment.
All eight U.S. Supreme Court Justices emphatically rejected that erroneous logic, and pointed out that the decision of D.C. v. Heller had expressly dismissed such fallacious reasoning. In addition, the High Court unanimously ruled that even though stun guns are not used in warfare, they are still fully protected by the Second Amendment. Justices Alito and Thomas sharply criticized the Massachusetts supreme court, saying that its argument “poses a grave threat to the fundamental right of self-defense.”
Listen to the radio commentary here: