Article: Stun-Gun Rights Backed by Unanimous U.S. Supreme Court

The case was sent back to the MA SJC. They will have to find a new way to rule against Caetano, but they _will_ find a way to do it.
 
MachineHead said:
I don't fear this decision. This is more of a "you can also use a stun gun if you prefer" kind of decision. Guns are in common use and have been since gunpowder was invented. I think there is more to this decision, though. This decision can be quoted in cases where people are trying to overturn stun gun bans.
Click to expand...


I'm a pessimist when it comes to any rights...my gun rights in particular....four supposed anti's voted for this devise as protected under 2A. Why? How will this be used against me/us in the future? I just see it coming back to bite us in the a$$. Especially in Mass.
 
robjax said:
I am in fear of this decision. It was unanimous. That scares me. The reason it scares me is now scotus gave people an alternative to traditional firearms. I fear they may use that to ban the traditional firearms saying that we are still allowing you your right to keep and bear arms to protect yourselves just with a less lethal weapon....so I am not optimistic about this "win".
Click to expand...
I don't think this is a reasonable concern. Look at it this way: The entire court doubled down on Heller - largely thanks to the hubris of the SJC. This decision makes it that much harder for a future court to chip away at Heller. It doesn't mean they're eager to expand Heller anytime soon, but un-ringing just got a lot harder.

DispositionMatrix said:
The case was sent back to the MA SJC. They will have to find a new way to rule against Caetano, but they _will_ find a way to do it.
Click to expand...
In order to do that, the Commonwealth will have to make the case, and the SJC will have to accept it, that the categorical ban on a class of bearable arms, protected by the Second Amendment, is somehow a 'reasonable regulation' on the exercise of the Second Amendment. They're going to try and I'm looking forward to it.
 
Forget stun guns, I'm hoping this works as framework for a legal challenge against the suppressor ban.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
This would seem to have some implications with regard to assault weapon bans as well, at least based on this:

The Court has held that “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,”
Click to expand...
 
Knuckle Dragger said:
I don't think this is a reasonable concern. Look at it this way: The entire court doubled down on Heller - largely thanks to the hubris of the SJC. This decision makes it that much harder for a future court to chip away at Heller. It doesn't mean they're eager to expand Heller anytime soon, but un-ringing just got a lot harder.

In order to do that, the Commonwealth will have to make the case, and the SJC will have to accept it, that the categorical ban on a class of bearable arms, protected by the Second Amendment, is somehow a 'reasonable regulation' on the exercise of the Second Amendment. They're going to try and I'm looking forward to it.
Click to expand...


So in the interim, stun guns remain illegal for the general public?
 
copterdoctor said:
Another article on the same subject

http://personalliberty.com/scotus-just-killed-a-favorite-liberal-argument-against-the-2nd-amendment/
Click to expand...

The Court has held that “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,” District of Columbia v. Heller...
Click to expand...

So, does this apply to shuriken, nunchaku, stilettos, dirk knives, automatic knives, daggers, metallic knuckles, and zoobows (if zoobows, whatever they may be, are indeed bearable)?

If so, there may be hope in that automatic knife yet.
 
robjax said:
I am in fear of this decision. It was unanimous. That scares me. The reason it scares me is now scotus gave people an alternative to traditional firearms. I fear they may use that to ban the traditional firearms saying that we are still allowing you your right to keep and bear arms to protect yourselves just with a less lethal weapon....so I am not optimistic about this "win".
Click to expand...

Exactly what l was thinking, setting us up for future bans on traditional firealms
 
robjax said:
I am in fear of this decision. It was unanimous. That scares me. The reason it scares me is now scotus gave people an alternative to traditional firearms. I fear they may use that to ban the traditional firearms saying that we are still allowing you your right to keep and bear arms to protect yourselves just with a less lethal weapon....so I am not optimistic about this "win".
Click to expand...

Completely irrational response, you need to re-read the decision. It says nothing about "precluding" firearms.

This is a spinning piledriver grade win for us, period end, full stop.

-Mike
 
I suggest ALL listen to the GOAL podcast with Comm2A. They discuss the TRUE status of this ruling. It will likely not end well for us, as I agree with Brent on his analysis of what will happen next.
 
It was a pretty interesting pod cast, but I am still sitting here baffled wondering what other kind of logic the MA SJC could dream up as a way to uphold it's old decision? To me, the slap down from scouts seemed pretty clear. Unless we are assuming that the MA SJC will just come up with another trumped up solution and hope it sticks?
 
Len-2A Training said:
I suggest ALL listen to the GOAL podcast with Comm2A. They discuss the TRUE status of this ruling. It will likely not end well for us, as I agree with Brent on his analysis of what will happen next.
Click to expand...

Oh Len, you're so gloom & doom. It's an overreach to suggest that "it will likely not end well for us". Regardless of what the SJC does when it reconsiders Caetano, there's no really path for anything to become worse. I see three possible outcomes:

1) The SJC will reverse itself, hold that possession of stun guns are in fact protected by the Second Amendment, and overturn Caetano's conviction;
2) The SJC will continue to uphold the constitutionality of 131J and Caetano's conviction, but will use different logic. They can still determine that they're dangerous and unusual, by employing different logic;
3) The Legislature will step in (as they should) and delete or modify 131J. In that case I'm not entirely sure what would happen with Caetano's conviction.

If the SJC decides to rehear this case rather than just issuing a revised declension, it is very likely that it will be heard by a court with three new justices appointed by Governor Baker. If the SJC continues to uphold the constitutionality of 131J and Caetano's conviction, this case could go back to the US Supreme Court a second time.
 
KD, just basing it on what you stated in the podcast and my belief for various reasons (I know the history of the ban) that #2 is the most likely outcome.

True it won't be worse, but I very seriously doubt that #1 would ever prevail in MA and the legislature really doesn't want to be bothered with gun law and I'm sure this topic as well, so #3 is extremely unlikely in my estimation.
 
Knuckle Dragger said:
2) The SJC will continue to uphold the constitutionality of 131J and Caetano's conviction, but will use different logic. They can still determine that they're dangerous and unusual, by employing different logic;
Click to expand...

I wonder how they could do this because even if they said it was dangerous for people to own, anyone could point to the plurality of states where stun guns are perfectly legal to own and carry. No matter how you slice and dice it, for example, if the SJC stated it was invented and designed only for law enforcement purposes and not for citizens, would be bogus because one would simply be able to point to literally almost any other state in the union. For that matter the same point could be made I'll bet for pepper spray. The logic would be epically incredible and probably easy to pick apart. I just hope these heartless justices realize that all of this affects the life of a battered homeless woman not some rich white guy who just wanted to show off.
 
f2426beb8e919bf685f11e129d397c79077eb5ea7b0b44226601aad6a7c13912.png

Hat tip: Instapundit reader stosh
 

Similar threads

Article: Nevada AG: Bloomberg-Backed Background Checks Would Not Have Prevented Las V
Replies
2
Views
518
Massbirdhunter
M
Article: Trump Bypasses Congress to Open Up World Markets to U.S. Gun Makers
Replies
10
Views
968
Crotchrocket
Crotchrocket
Article: Veterans Day 2017
Replies
5
Views
536
Len-2A Training
Len-2A Training
Article: 2nd Amendment Foundation Issues Travel Advisory: Your Gun Rights Are No Good in California
Replies
24
Views
2K
Len-2A Training
Len-2A Training
Article: 7 Mistakes Coyote Hunters Make
Replies
1
Views
469
Kevin_NH
Kevin_NH
Back
Top Bottom