Recent 2nd Amendment cases have focused on citizens' right to keep firearms in their homes. But what if you don't have a home? Do you still have 2nd Amendment rights?
If you don't have a home, you still have your other rights (free speech, free expression, free press, religion, etc), but what about firearms? Does the 2nd Amendment apply to a person or to that person's residence? Is the 2nd Amendment limited only to those citizens wealthy enough to own a home? Why should homeless people be denied the Constitutional right to defend themselves as is enjoyed by homeowners?
A Boston case may answer the question:
So there are two questions here. First, does the Second Amendment cover stun guns? Most people think of firearms when they think of the Second Amendment, but the Amendment says "arms" not "firearms." That means the Amendment covers all sorts of arms, possibly including stun guns.
The second issue is whether a right to keep "arms" in your "home" confers to homeless people the right to keep arms on their person (since they have no home).
Noticeably absent here is the ACLU. They claim to be the defender of the Bill of Rights and are frequent advocates for the homeless, but when it comes to the Second Amendment, the ACLU wants to pretend it doesn't exist. Why?
Considering how the Supreme Court has dodged the issue of Second Amendment jurisprudence for almost a century, it's an exciting time for court watchers. A 200+ year old right is being defined as we go.