Boston, MA

1091 readers

13 users here now

Welcome to c/boston,

A community for all things related to Boston, Massachusetts. Whether you're a local, a visitor, or just interested in the city, this is the place to discuss, share, and connect with fellow Bostonians.

Greater Boston area discussion is welcome here.

Rules:

Be respectful: Treat others with respect and courtesy. Personal attacks, trolling, and harassment will not be tolerated.

Stay on topic: Keep discussions relevant to Boston and its surrounding areas.

Official City of Boston Website

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

Massachusetts high court strikes down switchblade ban (www.reuters.com)

submitted 2 months ago by FireTower to c/boston

1 comments fedilink hide all child comments

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/19239048

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held, opens new tab that a 1957 law barring people from possessing spring-release pocketknives commonly known as "switchblades" violated the right to keep and bear arms enshrined in the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment.

The court reached that conclusion while dismissing a charge filed against David Canjura for unlawfully possessing a switchblade, which Boston police found when responding to a report of an altercation between Canjura and his girlfriend.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] jordanlund 6 points 2 months ago

This is in line with one of my favorite cases, Caetanto vs. Massachusetts.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caetano_v._Massachusetts

Woman got a stun gun to protect herself from an abusive ex. Was arrested for having the stun gun. Cops argued that the 2nd amendnent didn't apply because stun guns didn't exist back then.

Supreme court ruled:

The term "bearable arms" was defined in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) and includes any ""[w]eapo[n] of offence" or "thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands," that is "carr[ied] . . . for the purpose of offensive or defensive action." 554 U. S., at 581, 584 (internal quotation marks omitted)."[10]