The high court is scheduled to make a meeting on Monday to decide whether there should be changes on Massachusetts's ban on stun guns.
According to New York Times, the justices issued an unsigned opinion in favor of Jaime Caetano. Caetano was convicted of violating the state's stun gun law but she argued that she's keeping it to pursue self-defense against an abusive former boyfriend. The state Supreme Judicial Court supported the ban and stated that the Second Amendment's right to bear arms does not extend to stun guns. Moreover, Monday's unsigned opinion by Supreme Court does not indicate that stun guns do fall within the Second Amendment.
Yahoo reported that the high court said "the explanation the Massachusetts court offered for upholding the law contradicts this court's precedent." The court was referring to the 2008's ruling of District of Columbia v. Heller which struck down the ban on Washington, D.C. and led to access in having right to a gun at least for self defense at home. The decision was 5-4 with four liberal justices in dissent.
The court has repeatedly refused pleas in addressing the extent of gun rights in the United States as reported by Boston Herald. This event escalated to Justice Antonin Scalia and Justice Clarence Thomas to burst out their frustration in December for their colleagues refused to hear their argument over a local assault weapon ban. However, Scalia died in February which indicates that there is no knowing whether it would affect the outcome of this case nor the court's perception on the issue.
The Heller case proved significant as Adam Winkler, a legal dispute over guns expert, said that this was the first time that court's liberals cited the case positively. Moreover, Heller's case might show that it "has not proven to be a major impediment to effective gun control law."
