[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Ban On Possession Of Stun Guns Violated Second Amendment, Mass. High Court Rules (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 4/17/2018 2:16:47 PM EDT
|
Massachusetts' highest court ruled Tuesday that the state's ban on civilian possession of stun guns violates the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
The decision marked a reversal for the court, which reached an opposite conclusion in a different case in 2015. The U.S. Supreme Court, however, set aside that earlier ruling, saying the Massachusetts court failed to properly explain its decision. The Supreme Judicial Court stayed the effect of Tuesday's ruling for 60 days, leaving the 2004 state ban in place to give the Legislature time to rewrite the law to regulate the ownership of stun guns, without banning them entirely. |
| The way I'm reading this it says the state has more time to write and pass a law to "better" regulate their ownership. So not really a win? It is one of the commie states so I'm sure they'll come up with something. Nobody needs a stun gun. Nobody can hunt with a stun gun. |
|
Quoted:
The way I'm reading this it says the state has more time to write and pass a law to "better" regulate their ownership. So not really a win? It is one of the commie states so I'm sure they'll come up with something. Nobody needs a stun gun. Nobody can hunt with a stun gun. |
|
Quoted:
The way I'm reading this it says the state has more time to write and pass a law to "better" regulate their ownership. So not really a win? It is one of the commie states so I'm sure they'll come up with something. Nobody needs a stun gun. Nobody can hunt with a stun gun. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caetano_v._Massachusetts |
|
Quoted:
Why would a stun gun be protected under the 2nd amendment? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caetano_v._Massachusetts http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/03/the-second-amendment-expands-but-maybe-not-by-much/ |
|
Quoted:
The definition of "arms" as defined by the 2nd Amendment is not strictly limited to firearms. Quoted:
Quoted:
Why would a stun gun be protected under the 2nd amendment? Ignore this post. It was answered above |
|
Quoted: It will be interesting to see how they get around Caetano v Mass. USSC was 8-0 that Mass was wrong in their stun gun ban. basically, they said that a stun gun is protected because it's used by the military to control prisoners, making it a weapon useful to the militia. They also ruled technology advancements were covered, no amendment is limited to the technology of the late 1700s. The concurring opinion was written by Alito and is a good read. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caetano_v._Massachusetts How do state AWBs pass muster with Caetano vs. Mass on the books? I have no idea. |
|
Quoted:
The definition of "arms" as defined by the 2nd Amendment is not strictly limited to firearms. Quoted:
Quoted:
Why would a stun gun be protected under the 2nd amendment? https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/07/07/charges-dropped-in-caetano-v-massachusetts-second-amendment-stun-gun-case/?utm_term=.9e4da8aae84c |
|
Quoted:
I don’t see how a stun gun would aid, or increase the proficiency of a militia? Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Why would a stun gun be protected under the 2nd amendment? Before addressing the verbs "keep" and "bear," we interpret their object: "Arms." The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity. Thus, the most natural reading of "keep Arms" in the Second Amendment is to "have weapons." At the time of the founding, as now, to "bear" meant to "carry." In numerous instances, "bear arms" was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia. |
|
Quoted:
I don’t see how a stun gun would aid, or increase the proficiency of a militia? What if I want to snatch and grab an evil government officer during the upcoming revolution for interrogation? A stun gun may help quite a bit to capture him, no? It's a weapon. Weapons are protected. |
|
Quoted:
Huge Victory! Muh Assault Stuns! Who fucking cares... Every win is a brick in the bulwark that protects our rights. |
|
Quoted:
Yet banning most modern semi auto rifles is somehow OK? How do state AWBs pass muster with Caetano vs. Mass on the books? I have no idea. Quoted:
Quoted: It will be interesting to see how they get around Caetano v Mass. USSC was 8-0 that Mass was wrong in their stun gun ban. basically, they said that a stun gun is protected because it's used by the military to control prisoners, making it a weapon useful to the militia. They also ruled technology advancements were covered, no amendment is limited to the technology of the late 1700s. The concurring opinion was written by Alito and is a good read. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caetano_v._Massachusetts How do state AWBs pass muster with Caetano vs. Mass on the books? I have no idea. Together, they basically say that any weapon useful to a militia, regardless of the technology, is protected by the Second Amendment. None of those cases raised the issue of involvement in any government acknowledged militia. They all assume an individual right separate from an organized militia. I did read once that militia membership was raised in the Miller case at a lower court, but was dropped. I can't find a reference to it, does anyone know anything about it happening? |
|
Quoted:
leaving the 2004 state ban in place to give the Legislature time to rewrite the law to regulate the ownership of stun guns, without banning them entirely.  They will just lump it into a handgun license/FOID permitting scheme...And outlaw any stun gun that is powered by anything more than solar power and unicorn farts. |
|
Quoted:
Really? What if I want to snatch and grab an evil government officer during the upcoming revolution for interrogation? A stun gun may help quite a bit to capture him, no? It's a weapon. Weapons are protected. Quoted:
Quoted:
I don’t see how a stun gun would aid, or increase the proficiency of a militia? What if I want to snatch and grab an evil government officer during the upcoming revolution for interrogation? A stun gun may help quite a bit to capture him, no? It's a weapon. Weapons are protected. |
|
Quoted:
It will be interesting to see how they get around Caetano v Mass. USSC was 8-0 that Mass was wrong in their stun gun ban. basically, they said that a stun gun is protected because it's used by the military to control prisoners, making it a weapon useful to the militia. They also ruled technology advancements were covered, no amendment is limited to the technology of the late 1700s. The concurring opinion was written by Alito and is a good read. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caetano_v._Massachusetts Quoted:
Quoted:
The way I'm reading this it says the state has more time to write and pass a law to "better" regulate their ownership. So not really a win? It is one of the commie states so I'm sure they'll come up with something. Nobody needs a stun gun. Nobody can hunt with a stun gun. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caetano_v._Massachusetts |
|
Quoted:
Have you ever used a stun gun? Have you ever had one used on you? they are flea market toys. Tasers are usually effective. Stun Guns are not Tasers. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I don’t see how a stun gun would aid, or increase the proficiency of a militia? What if I want to snatch and grab an evil government officer during the upcoming revolution for interrogation? A stun gun may help quite a bit to capture him, no? It's a weapon. Weapons are protected. |
|
Quoted:
Why would a stun gun be protected under the 2nd amendment? |
|
So, it's unconstitutional, but we're going to allow this unconstitutional law to stand until you legislators can write it so it's not quite so unconstitutional.
If I had money and time I'd be blatantly violating that law and then suing the fuck out of whatever jurisdiction charged me. "Your Honor, I was charged with violating a law that the State Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional." |
|
Quoted: Yet banning most modern semi auto rifles is somehow OK? How do state AWBs pass muster with Caetano vs. Mass on the books? I have no idea. |
|
Quoted:
Have you ever used a stun gun? Have you ever had one used on you? they are flea market toys. Tasers are usually effective. Stun Guns are not Tasers. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I don’t see how a stun gun would aid, or increase the proficiency of a militia? What if I want to snatch and grab an evil government officer during the upcoming revolution for interrogation? A stun gun may help quite a bit to capture him, no? It's a weapon. Weapons are protected. |
|
Quoted:
So, what about select fire weapons? Seems the military finds them useful as could a militia. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The way I'm reading this it says the state has more time to write and pass a law to "better" regulate their ownership. So not really a win? It is one of the commie states so I'm sure they'll come up with something. Nobody needs a stun gun. Nobody can hunt with a stun gun. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caetano_v._Massachusetts |
|
Quoted:
Yet banning most modern semi auto rifles is somehow OK? How do state AWBs pass muster with Caetano vs. Mass on the books? I have no idea. Remember, no AWB case has actually been ruled on by SCOTUS, so having this as established caselaw is immensely important for the day that they do...and that day is coming. |
|
Quoted:
A Taser used to “drive stun” is a stun gun. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I don’t see how a stun gun would aid, or increase the proficiency of a militia? What if I want to snatch and grab an evil government officer during the upcoming revolution for interrogation? A stun gun may help quite a bit to capture him, no? It's a weapon. Weapons are protected. |
|
Quoted:
Agreed. Circuit Courts have demonstrated that they are too smart to have to follow SCOTUS rulings they don't like. Remember, no AWB case has actually been ruled on by SCOTUS, so having this as established caselaw is immensely important for the day that they do...and that day is coming. Quoted:
Quoted:
Yet banning most modern semi auto rifles is somehow OK? How do state AWBs pass muster with Caetano vs. Mass on the books? I have no idea. Remember, no AWB case has actually been ruled on by SCOTUS, so having this as established caselaw is immensely important for the day that they do...and that day is coming. |
|
Quoted:
Because Kennedy has the legal backbone of a nematode and is governed by his feelings. He was the one that forced Scalia to include that coda about "not affecting other laws", or he wouldn't sign off. And the reason why the SC has been taking a pass on state AWB's is that Kennedy and the other 4 libs will say "Fuck Caetano, those guns are scary, state law stands." Quoted:
Quoted: Yet banning most modern semi auto rifles is somehow OK? How do state AWBs pass muster with Caetano vs. Mass on the books? I have no idea. That phrase really hurts, I read Heller to say that it's a limited ruling and they aren't looking at all gun control. Anti-gun people are using that line to say all other gun control is constitutional. Heller didn't say AWB are constitutional, it said they weren't addressing those laws in the ruling. |
|
Quoted:
Yet banning most modern semi auto rifles is somehow OK? How do state AWBs pass muster with Caetano vs. Mass on the books? I have no idea. Quoted:
Quoted: It will be interesting to see how they get around Caetano v Mass. USSC was 8-0 that Mass was wrong in their stun gun ban. basically, they said that a stun gun is protected because it's used by the military to control prisoners, making it a weapon useful to the militia. They also ruled technology advancements were covered, no amendment is limited to the technology of the late 1700s. The concurring opinion was written by Alito and is a good read. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caetano_v._Massachusetts How do state AWBs pass muster with Caetano vs. Mass on the books? I have no idea. The entire state is a corrupt cesspool. |
