|
|
这个判决的论证比较牵强。法官似乎死磕Heller是用历史的角度来判断哪些枪是合宪的，从而得出stun gun不在宪法保护范围内。
The Supreme Court recently interpreted the Second Amendment in a historical context that focused on the meaning of various words and phrases in the amendment as they probably were understood and used by Congress at the time of the Second Amendment's enactment....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.
但是，海勒判决：美国宪法第二修正案的涵义
"拥有和携带武器"。先说武器，这包括任何个人可以携带的用于进攻或防御的武器，不一定是用于战争的。那种认为被保护的武器只能包括１８世纪就存在的武器的说法近乎于胡搅蛮缠。就如第一修正案保护现代的言论手段，第四修正案限制现代的搜查手段一样，第二修正案保护拥有现代武器的权力。
Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union , 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States , 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
第二修正案里
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
的“arms”一字，在海勒里，被高院定义为武器。所以不应该仅限于火器。
Thus, the most natural reading of “keep Arms” in the Second Amendment is to “have weapons.”
|
|
发表于 2015-3-12 15:34
收藏
提升卡
变色卡
千斤顶
发表于 2015-3-12 16:11
