DispositionMatrix
NES Member
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.
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
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.
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.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".
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.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.
Rail guns are not currently banned as long as they don't use a combustion/detonation system to generate the EMP for the rail. Stick with a large capacitor bank and you don't even need an LTC or FID.On to rail guns.
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,”
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.
Another article on the same subject
http://personalliberty.com/scotus-just-killed-a-favorite-liberal-argument-against-the-2nd-amendment/
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...
LOL.
The comment section is going full retard on MSN. I needed a good laugh.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/su...tts-ban-on-stun-guns/ar-BBqJeBV?ocid=hmlogout
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".
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".
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.
Link?
I just found it http://goal.org/podcast.html The comm2a episode isn't up directly on the page yet, but if you grab the itunes link, you can find it. Direct link: http://traffic.libsyn.com/goalpodcast/the-primer-episode-6-comm2a.mp3
Thanks. I had looked for it on goal.org, but as you mentioned that episode was not up yet.I just found it http://goal.org/podcast.html The comm2a episode isn't up directly on the page yet, but if you grab the itunes link, you can find it. Direct link: http://traffic.libsyn.com/goalpodcast/the-primer-episode-6-comm2a.mp3
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.
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;