jaime
caetano
massachusetts
argued
decided
march
per
curiam
held
second
amendment
extends
prima
facie
instruments
constitute
bearable
arms
even
existence
time
founding
district
columbia
heller
second
amendment
right
fully
applicable
mcdonald
chicago
case
judicial
massachusetts
upheld
massachusetts
law
prohibiting
possession
stun
guns
examining
whether
stun
gun
type
weapon
contemplated
congress
protected
second
amendment
mass
offered
three
explanations
support
holding
second
amendment
extend
stun
guns
first
explained
stun
guns
protected
common
use
time
second
amendment
enactment
inconsistent
heller
clear
statement
second
amendment
extends
arms
existence
time
founding
next
asked
whether
stun
guns
dangerous
per
se
common
law
unusual
attempt
apply
one
important
limitation
right
keep
carry
arms
heller
see
ibid
referring
historical
tradition
prohibiting
carrying
unusual
concluded
stun
guns
unusual
thoroughly
modern
invention
equating
unusual
common
use
time
second
amendment
enactment
second
explanation
first
inconsistent
heller
reason
finally
used
contemporary
lens
found
nothing
record
suggest
stun
guns
readily
adaptable
use
military
heller
rejected
proposition
weapons
useful
warfare
protected
three
reasons
explanation
massachusetts
offered
upholding
law
contradicts
precedent
consequently
petition
writ
certiorari
motion
leave
proceed
forma
pauperis
granted
judgment
judicial
massachusetts
vacated
case
remanded
proceedings
inconsistent
opinion
ordered
alito
concurring
judgment
jaime
caetano
massachusetts
petition
writ
certiorari
judicial
massachusetts
decided
march
justice
alito
justice
thomas
joins
concurring
judgment
bad
altercation
abusive
boyfriend
put
hospital
jaime
caetano
found
homeless
fear
life
tr
july
obtained
multiple
restraining
orders
abuser
proved
futile
friend
offered
stun
gun
former
boy
friend
mass
caetano
accepted
weapon
good
thing
one
night
leaving
work
caetano
found
waiting
outside
tr
started
screaming
gon
na
expletive
deleted
work
place
home
kids
together
ibid
caetano
abuser
towered
nearly
foot
outweighed
close
pounds
need
physical
strength
protect
stood
ground
displayed
stun
gun
announced
gon
na
take
anymore
wan
na
use
stun
gun
leave
alone
gon
na
gambit
worked
got
scared
left
alone
settled
second
amendment
protects
individual
right
keep
bear
arms
applies
federal
government
district
columbia
heller
mcdonald
chicago
right
vindicates
basic
right
individual
see
heller
supra
caetano
encounter
violent
illustrates
connection
fundamental
rights
arming
caetano
able
protect
physical
threat
restraining
orders
proved
useless
prevent
commendably
using
weapon
posed
little
danger
permanently
harming
either
father
children
massachusetts
law
however
caetano
mere
possession
stun
gun
may
saved
life
made
criminal
see
mass
laws
ch
police
later
discovered
weapon
arrested
tried
convicted
massachusetts
judicial
affirmed
conviction
holding
stun
gun
type
weapon
eligible
second
amendment
protection
common
use
time
second
amendment
enactment
reasoning
defies
decision
heller
rejected
bordering
frivolous
argument
arms
existence
century
protected
second
amendment
decision
also
grave
disservice
vulnerable
individuals
like
caetano
must
defend
state
events
leading
caetano
prosecution
occurred
sometime
confrontation
september
police
officers
responded
reported
shoplifting
ashland
massachusetts
supermarket
store
manager
detained
suspect
identified
caetano
another
person
parking
lot
potential
accomplices
police
approached
two
obtained
caetano
consent
search
purse
found
evidence
shoplifting
saw
caetano
stun
gun
caetano
explained
officers
acquired
weapon
defend
violent
officers
believed
caetano
arrested
violating
mass
laws
ch
bans
entirely
possession
electrical
weapon
caetano
moved
dismiss
charge
second
amendment
grounds
trial
denied
motion
subsequent
bench
trial
established
following
undisputed
facts
parties
stipulated
caetano
possessed
stun
gun
weapon
fell
within
statute
commonwealth
also
challenge
caetano
testimony
possessed
weapon
defend
violent
indeed
prosecutor
urged
believe
defendant
tr
trial
nonetheless
found
caetano
guilty
appealed
massachusetts
judicial
judicial
rejected
caetano
second
amendment
claim
holding
stun
gun
type
weapon
eligible
second
amendment
protection
reasoned
stun
guns
unprotected
common
use
time
enactment
second
amendment
quoting
heller
supra
fall
within
traditional
prohibition
carrying
dangerous
unusual
weapons
citing
heller
supra
ii
although
judicial
professed
apply
heller
step
analysis
defied
heller
reasoning
state
repeatedly
framed
question
whether
particular
weapon
common
use
time
enactment
second
amendment
see
also
heller
emphatically
rejected
formulation
found
argument
arms
existence
century
protected
second
amendment
merely
wrong
bordering
frivolous
instead
held
second
amendment
extends
prima
facie
instruments
constitute
bearable
arms
even
existence
time
founding
ibid
emphasis
added
hard
imagine
language
speaking
directly
point
yet
judicial
much
mention
instead
seized
language
originating
miller
sorts
weapons
protected
common
use
time
quoting
heller
supra
turn
quoting
miller
supra
quotation
mean
thought
weapons
popular
covered
second
amendment
simply
reflects
reality
militia
consisted
citizens
bring
sorts
lawful
weapons
possessed
home
militia
duty
heller
second
amendment
accordingly
guarantees
right
carry
weapons
typically
possessed
citizens
lawful
purposes
stun
guns
existence
end
century
true
weapons
commonly
used
today
namely
revolvers
semiautomatic
pistols
revolvers
virtually
unknown
well
semiautomatic
pistols
invented
near
end
electronic
stun
guns
exempt
second
amendment
protections
simply
unknown
first
congress
electronic
communications
exempt
first
amendment
electronic
imaging
devices
exempt
fourth
amendment
citing
reno
american
civil
liberties
union
kyllo
heller
aptly
put
interpret
constitutional
rights
way
judicial
holding
stun
guns
may
banned
dangerous
unusual
weapons
fares
better
per
curiam
opinion
recognizes
conjunctive
test
weapon
may
banned
unless
dangerous
unusual
rejects
lower
conclusion
stun
guns
unusual
need
consider
lower
conclusion
also
dangerous
see
ante
make
mistake
decision
gravely
erred
grounds
dangerous
held
weapon
dangerous
per
se
constructed
produce
death
great
bodily
harm
purpose
bodily
assault
defense
quoting
commonwealth
appleby
mass
test
may
appropriate
applying
statutes
criminalizing
assault
dangerous
weapon
see
used
identify
arms
fall
outside
second
amendment
first
relative
dangerousness
weapon
irrelevant
weapon
belongs
class
arms
commonly
used
lawful
purposes
see
heller
supra
contrasting
unusual
may
banned
protected
weapons
common
use
second
even
cases
dangerousness
might
relevant
judicial
test
sweeps
far
broadly
heller
defined
arms
covered
second
amendment
include
thing
man
wears
defence
takes
hands
useth
wrath
cast
strike
another
decision
however
virtually
every
covered
arm
qualify
dangerous
doubt
point
one
need
look
first
example
dangerous
per
se
weapons
firearms
heller
tells
us
anything
firearms
categorically
prohibited
dangerous
fortiori
stun
guns
commonwealth
witness
described
force
tr
banned
basis
judicial
conclusion
stun
guns
unusual
rested
largely
premise
one
must
ask
whether
weapon
commonly
used
see
already
discussed
simply
wrong
see
supra
also
opined
weapon
unusualness
depends
whether
weapon
warfare
used
militia
asserted
followed
approach
miller
approved
use
heller
heller
actually
said
startling
reading
miller
conclude
weapons
useful
warfare
protected
instead
miller
heller
recognized
militia
members
traditionally
reported
duty
carrying
sorts
lawful
weapons
possessed
home
second
amendment
therefore
protects
weapons
class
regardless
particular
weapon
suitability
military
use
see
indeed
heller
acknowledged
advancements
military
technology
might
render
many
commonly
owned
weapons
ineffective
warfare
modern
developments
change
interpretation
right
ibid
event
judicial
assumption
stun
guns
unsuited
militia
military
use
untenable
section
allows
law
enforcement
correctional
officers
carry
stun
guns
tasers
presumably
purposes
nonlethal
crowd
control
subduing
members
mob
little
different
suppress
ing
insurrections
traditional
role
militia
art
cl
see
also
ibid
militia
may
called
forth
execute
laws
union
additionally
several
branches
armed
services
equip
troops
electrical
stun
weapons
incapacitate
target
without
permanent
injury
known
side
effects
army
project
manager
close
combat
systems
pd
combat
munitions
launched
electrode
stun
device
lesd
http
internet
materials
last
visited
mar
see
marine
corps
administrative
message
marine
corps
guidance
use
tasers
http
news
messages
messagesdisplay
joint
weapons
directorate
weapons
nlw
reference
book
department
defense
report
stating
ultiple
services
employ
tasers
http
foregoing
makes
clear
pertinent
second
amendment
inquiry
whether
stun
guns
commonly
possessed
citizens
lawful
purposes
today
judicial
offered
cursory
discussion
question
noting
tasers
stun
guns
dwarfed
number
firearms
observation
may
true
beside
point
otherwise
state
free
ban
weapons
except
handguns
handguns
popular
weapon
chosen
americans
home
heller
supra
relevant
statistic
undreds
thousands
tasers
stun
guns
sold
private
citizens
appears
may
lawfully
possess
people
yanna
app
holding
michigan
stun
gun
ban
unconstitutional
see
volokh
nonlethal
almost
entirely
nonlethal
weapons
rights
keep
bear
arms
defend
life
stan
rev
citing
stun
gun
bans
seven
stat
supp
amended
wisconsin
law
permitting
stun
gun
possession
see
also
brief
opposition
acknowledging
approximately
civilians
owned
stun
guns
less
popular
handguns
stun
guns
widely
owned
accepted
legitimate
means
across
country
massachusetts
categorical
ban
weapons
therefore
violates
second
amendment
iii
lower
ill
treatment
heller
stand
reasoning
massachusetts
poses
grave
threat
fundamental
right
judicial
suggested
caetano
simply
gotten
firearm
defend
right
bear
weapons
answer
ban
possession
protected
arms
heller
moreover
weapon
effective
means
one
prepared
use
presumptuous
tell
caetano
ready
shoot
father
two
young
children
wanted
protect
courts
business
demanding
citizens
use
force
comfortable
countless
people
may
reservations
using
deadly
force
whether
moral
religious
emotional
reasons
simply
fear
killing
wrong
person
see
brief
arming
women
rape
endangerment
amicus
curiae
however
basic
right
mcdonald
prepared
say
state
may
force
individual
choose
exercising
right
following
conscience
least
accommodated
weapon
already
widespread
use
across
nation
state
basic
responsibility
keep
people
safe
commonwealth
massachusetts
either
unable
unwilling
necessary
protect
jaime
caetano
forced
protect
make
matters
worse
commonwealth
chose
deploy
prosecutorial
resources
prosecute
convict
criminal
offense
arming
nonlethal
weapon
may
well
saved
life
judicial
affirmed
conviction
flimsiest
grounds
grudging
per
curiam
sends
case
back
consequences
caetano
may
prove
tragic
still
conviction
likely
bars
ever
bearing
arms
see
pet
cert
fundamental
right
protect
caetano
safety
americans
left
mercy
state
authorities
may
concerned
disarming
people
keeping
safe
jaime
caetano
massachusetts
petition
writ
certiorari
judicial
massachusetts
decided
march
per
curiam
held
second
amendment
extends
prima
facie
instruments
constitute
bearable
arms
even
existence
time
founding
district
columbia
heller
second
amendment
right
fully
applicable
mcdonald
chicago
case
judicial
massachusetts
upheld
massachusetts
law
prohibiting
possession
stun
guns
examining
whether
stun
gun
type
weapon
contemplated
congress
protected
second
amendment
mass
offered
three
explanations
support
holding
second
amendment
extend
stun
guns
first
explained
stun
guns
protected
common
use
time
second
amendment
enactment
inconsistent
heller
clear
statement
second
amendment
extends
arms
existence
time
founding
next
asked
whether
stun
guns
dangerous
per
se
common
law
unusual
attempt
apply
one
important
limitation
right
keep
carry
arms
heller
see
ibid
referring
historical
tradition
prohibiting
carrying
unusual
concluded
stun
guns
unusual
thoroughly
modern
invention
equating
unusual
common
use
time
second
amendment
enactment
second
explanation
first
inconsistent
heller
reason
finally
used
contemporary
lens
found
nothing
record
suggest
stun
guns
readily
adaptable
use
military
heller
rejected
proposition
weapons
useful
warfare
protected
three
reasons
explanation
massachusetts
offered
upholding
law
contradicts
precedent
consequently
petition
writ
certiorari
motion
leave
proceed
forma
pauperis
granted
judgment
judicial
massachusetts
vacated
case
remanded
proceedings
inconsistent
opinion
ordered
alito
concurring
judgment
jaime
caetano
massachusetts
petition
writ
certiorari
judicial
massachusetts
decided
march
justice
alito
justice
thomas
joins
concurring
judgment
bad
altercation
abusive
boyfriend
put
hospital
jaime
caetano
found
homeless
fear
life
tr
july
obtained
multiple
restraining
orders
abuser
proved
futile
friend
offered
stun
gun
former
boy
friend
mass
caetano
accepted
weapon
good
thing
one
night
leaving
work
caetano
found
waiting
outside
tr
started
screaming
gon
na
expletive
deleted
work
place
home
kids
together
ibid
caetano
abuser
towered
nearly
foot
outweighed
close
pounds
need
physical
strength
protect
stood
ground
displayed
stun
gun
announced
gon
na
take
anymore
wan
na
use
stun
gun
leave
alone
gon
na
gambit
worked
got
scared
left
alone
settled
second
amendment
protects
individual
right
keep
bear
arms
applies
federal
government
district
columbia
heller
mcdonald
chicago
right
vindicates
basic
right
individual
see
heller
supra
caetano
encounter
violent
illustrates
connection
fundamental
rights
arming
caetano
able
protect
physical
threat
restraining
orders
proved
useless
prevent
commendably
using
weapon
posed
little
danger
permanently
harming
either
father
children
massachusetts
law
however
caetano
mere
possession
stun
gun
may
saved
life
made
criminal
see
mass
laws
ch
police
later
discovered
weapon
arrested
tried
convicted
massachusetts
judicial
affirmed
conviction
holding
stun
gun
type
weapon
eligible
second
amendment
protection
common
use
time
second
amendment
enactment
reasoning
defies
decision
heller
rejected
bordering
frivolous
argument
arms
existence
century
protected
second
amendment
decision
also
grave
disservice
vulnerable
individuals
like
caetano
must
defend
state
events
leading
caetano
prosecution
occurred
sometime
confrontation
september
police
officers
responded
reported
shoplifting
ashland
massachusetts
supermarket
store
manager
detained
suspect
identified
caetano
another
person
parking
lot
potential
accomplices
police
approached
two
obtained
caetano
consent
search
purse
found
evidence
shoplifting
saw
caetano
stun
gun
caetano
explained
officers
acquired
weapon
defend
violent
officers
believed
caetano
arrested
violating
mass
laws
ch
bans
entirely
possession
electrical
weapon
caetano
moved
dismiss
charge
second
amendment
grounds
trial
denied
motion
subsequent
bench
trial
established
following
undisputed
facts
parties
stipulated
caetano
possessed
stun
gun
weapon
fell
within
statute
commonwealth
also
challenge
caetano
testimony
possessed
weapon
defend
violent
indeed
prosecutor
urged
believe
defendant
tr
trial
nonetheless
found
caetano
guilty
appealed
massachusetts
judicial
judicial
rejected
caetano
second
amendment
claim
holding
stun
gun
type
weapon
eligible
second
amendment
protection
reasoned
stun
guns
unprotected
common
use
time
enactment
second
amendment
quoting
heller
supra
fall
within
traditional
prohibition
carrying
dangerous
unusual
weapons
citing
heller
supra
ii
although
judicial
professed
apply
heller
step
analysis
defied
heller
reasoning
state
repeatedly
framed
question
whether
particular
weapon
common
use
time
enactment
second
amendment
see
also
heller
emphatically
rejected
formulation
found
argument
arms
existence
century
protected
second
amendment
merely
wrong
bordering
frivolous
instead
held
second
amendment
extends
prima
facie
instruments
constitute
bearable
arms
even
existence
time
founding
ibid
emphasis
added
hard
imagine
language
speaking
directly
point
yet
judicial
much
mention
instead
seized
language
originating
miller
sorts
weapons
protected
common
use
time
quoting
heller
supra
turn
quoting
miller
supra
quotation
mean
thought
weapons
popular
covered
second
amendment
simply
reflects
reality
militia
consisted
citizens
bring
sorts
lawful
weapons
possessed
home
militia
duty
heller
second
amendment
accordingly
guarantees
right
carry
weapons
typically
possessed
citizens
lawful
purposes
stun
guns
existence
end
century
true
weapons
commonly
used
today
namely
revolvers
semiautomatic
pistols
revolvers
virtually
unknown
well
semiautomatic
pistols
invented
near
end
electronic
stun
guns
exempt
second
amendment
protections
simply
unknown
first
congress
electronic
communications
exempt
first
amendment
electronic
imaging
devices
exempt
fourth
amendment
citing
reno
american
civil
liberties
union
kyllo
heller
aptly
put
interpret
constitutional
rights
way
judicial
holding
stun
guns
may
banned
dangerous
unusual
weapons
fares
better
per
curiam
opinion
recognizes
conjunctive
test
weapon
may
banned
unless
dangerous
unusual
rejects
lower
conclusion
stun
guns
unusual
need
consider
lower
conclusion
also
dangerous
see
ante
make
mistake
decision
gravely
erred
grounds
dangerous
held
weapon
dangerous
per
se
constructed
produce
death
great
bodily
harm
purpose
bodily
assault
defense
quoting
commonwealth
appleby
mass
test
may
appropriate
applying
statutes
criminalizing
assault
dangerous
weapon
see
used
identify
arms
fall
outside
second
amendment
first
relative
dangerousness
weapon
irrelevant
weapon
belongs
class
arms
commonly
used
lawful
purposes
see
heller
supra
contrasting
unusual
may
banned
protected
weapons
common
use
second
even
cases
dangerousness
might
relevant
judicial
test
sweeps
far
broadly
heller
defined
arms
covered
second
amendment
include
thing
man
wears
defence
takes
hands
useth
wrath
cast
strike
another
decision
however
virtually
every
covered
arm
qualify
dangerous
doubt
point
one
need
look
first
example
dangerous
per
se
weapons
firearms
heller
tells
us
anything
firearms
categorically
prohibited
dangerous
fortiori
stun
guns
commonwealth
witness
described
force
tr
banned
basis
judicial
conclusion
stun
guns
unusual
rested
largely
premise
one
must
ask
whether
weapon
commonly
used
see
already
discussed
simply
wrong
see
supra
also
opined
weapon
unusualness
depends
whether
weapon
warfare
used
militia
asserted
followed
approach
miller
approved
use
heller
heller
actually
said
startling
reading
miller
conclude
weapons
useful
warfare
protected
instead
miller
heller
recognized
militia
members
traditionally
reported
duty
carrying
sorts
lawful
weapons
possessed
home
second
amendment
therefore
protects
weapons
class
regardless
particular
weapon
suitability
military
use
see
indeed
heller
acknowledged
advancements
military
technology
might
render
many
commonly
owned
weapons
ineffective
warfare
modern
developments
change
interpretation
right
ibid
event
judicial
assumption
stun
guns
unsuited
militia
military
use
untenable
section
allows
law
enforcement
correctional
officers
carry
stun
guns
tasers
presumably
purposes
nonlethal
crowd
control
subduing
members
mob
little
different
suppress
ing
insurrections
traditional
role
militia
art
cl
see
also
ibid
militia
may
called
forth
execute
laws
union
additionally
several
branches
armed
services
equip
troops
electrical
stun
weapons
incapacitate
target
without
permanent
injury
known
side
effects
army
project
manager
close
combat
systems
pd
combat
munitions
launched
electrode
stun
device
lesd
http
internet
materials
last
visited
mar
see
marine
corps
administrative
message
marine
corps
guidance
use
tasers
http
news
messages
messagesdisplay
joint
weapons
directorate
weapons
nlw
reference
book
department
defense
report
stating
ultiple
services
employ
tasers
http
foregoing
makes
clear
pertinent
second
amendment
inquiry
whether
stun
guns
commonly
possessed
citizens
lawful
purposes
today
judicial
offered
cursory
discussion
question
noting
tasers
stun
guns
dwarfed
number
firearms
observation
may
true
beside
point
otherwise
state
free
ban
weapons
except
handguns
handguns
popular
weapon
chosen
americans
home
heller
supra
relevant
statistic
undreds
thousands
tasers
stun
guns
sold
private
citizens
appears
may
lawfully
possess
people
yanna
app
holding
michigan
stun
gun
ban
unconstitutional
see
volokh
nonlethal
almost
entirely
nonlethal
weapons
rights
keep
bear
arms
defend
life
stan
rev
citing
stun
gun
bans
seven
stat
supp
amended
wisconsin
law
permitting
stun
gun
possession
see
also
brief
opposition
acknowledging
approximately
civilians
owned
stun
guns
less
popular
handguns
stun
guns
widely
owned
accepted
legitimate
means
across
country
massachusetts
categorical
ban
weapons
therefore
violates
second
amendment
iii
lower
ill
treatment
heller
stand
reasoning
massachusetts
poses
grave
threat
fundamental
right
judicial
suggested
caetano
simply
gotten
firearm
defend
right
bear
weapons
answer
ban
possession
protected
arms
heller
moreover
weapon
effective
means
one
prepared
use
presumptuous
tell
caetano
ready
shoot
father
two
young
children
wanted
protect
courts
business
demanding
citizens
use
force
comfortable
countless
people
may
reservations
using
deadly
force
whether
moral
religious
emotional
reasons
simply
fear
killing
wrong
person
see
brief
arming
women
rape
endangerment
amicus
curiae
however
basic
right
mcdonald
prepared
say
state
may
force
individual
choose
exercising
right
following
conscience
least
accommodated
weapon
already
widespread
use
across
nation
state
basic
responsibility
keep
people
safe
commonwealth
massachusetts
either
unable
unwilling
necessary
protect
jaime
caetano
forced
protect
make
matters
worse
commonwealth
chose
deploy
prosecutorial
resources
prosecute
convict
criminal
offense
arming
nonlethal
weapon
may
well
saved
life
judicial
affirmed
conviction
flimsiest
grounds
grudging
per
curiam
sends
case
back
consequences
caetano
may
prove
tragic
still
conviction
likely
bars
ever
bearing
arms
see
pet
cert
fundamental
right
protect
caetano
safety
americans
left
mercy
state
authorities
may
concerned
disarming
people
keeping
safe
footnotes
specifically
statute
prohibits
possession
portable
device
weapon
electrical
current
impulse
wave
beam
may
directed
current
impulse
wave
beam
designed
incapacitate
temporarily
injure
kill
mass
laws
ch
statute
includes
exceptions
officers
weapon
suppliers
may
possess
electrical
weapons
designed
incapacitate
temporarily
ibid
violations
punishable
fine
imprisonment
months
years
ibid
stun
guns
like
caetano
designed
stun
person
electrical
current
running
current
two
metal
prongs
device
placing
prongs
direct
contact
person
mass
similar
device
popularly
known
brand
name
taser
shoots
wires
tipped
electrodes
deliver
electrical
current
distance
tr
tasers
also
used
like
stun
gun
without
deploying
electrodes
dry
stun
commonwealth
witness
testified
trial
sorts
electrical
weapons
force
designed
incapacitate
kill
target
stun
guns
plainly
bearable
arms
heller
explained
term
includes
eapo
offence
thing
man
wears
defence
takes
hands
carr
ied
purpose
offensive
defensive
action
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
see
bilby
revolution
arms
history
first
repeating
rifles
samuel
colt
patent
famous
revolver
ibid
see
firearms
illustrated
history
see
also
greener
gun
development
ed
discussing
revolvers
semiautomatic
pistols
modern
pistols
also
noted
massachusetts
longer
requires
license
possess
mace
pepper
spray
law
changed
caetano
convicted
spray
also
foiled
stiff
breeze
stun
gun
footnotes
specifically
statute
prohibits
possession
portable
device
weapon
electrical
current
impulse
wave
beam
may
directed
current
impulse
wave
beam
designed
incapacitate
temporarily
injure
kill
mass
laws
ch
statute
includes
exceptions
officers
weapon
suppliers
may
possess
electrical
weapons
designed
incapacitate
temporarily
ibid
violations
punishable
fine
imprisonment
months
years
ibid
stun
guns
like
caetano
designed
stun
person
electrical
current
running
current
two
metal
prongs
device
placing
prongs
direct
contact
person
mass
similar
device
popularly
known
brand
name
taser
shoots
wires
tipped
electrodes
deliver
electrical
current
distance
tr
tasers
also
used
like
stun
gun
without
deploying
electrodes
dry
stun
commonwealth
witness
testified
trial
sorts
electrical
weapons
force
designed
incapacitate
kill
target
stun
guns
plainly
bearable
arms
heller
explained
term
includes
eapo
offence
thing
man
wears
defence
takes
hands
carr
ied
purpose
offensive
defensive
action
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
see
bilby
revolution
arms
history
first
repeating
rifles
samuel
colt
patent
famous
revolver
ibid
see
firearms
illustrated
history
see
also
greener
gun
development
ed
discussing
revolvers
semiautomatic
pistols
modern
pistols
also
noted
massachusetts
longer
requires
license
possess
mace
pepper
spray
law
changed
caetano
convicted
spray
also
foiled
stiff
breeze
stun
gun