Comm2A has filed an amicus in a stun gun possession criminal case at the SJC

[M1911]

The term "Taser" is being mis-used to the point it is in danger if becoming a generic. I suspect you were hit by a non-taser stun gun, not a Taser in drive stun mode (which has severe limitations compared to "shoot the wires" mode).

Yes, I'm sure it wasn't a Taser brand stun gun and it wasn't used in a "shoot the wires" mode. So the actual amount of shock given was only a tiny fraction of what it would be from a police Taser.

 

[VetteGirlMA]

One thing I have noticed about the gun grabbers is that they are clever in how they use the law. Whenever they sense a defeat, they immediately acquiesce. I guess they figure it's easier to restore one person's rights, then to lose their position. I'd be willing to venture that if the situation ever got so far out of hand that someone found themselves on the wrong side of the AG's directive, and they sensed a big loss, they would pull out of the case. It's actually still a win for them because even though the law would be unenforceable, it would still be on the books and could be used again even if they knew it was a loss. Suppose the MA legislature knows that the stun gun law cannot be enforced, but leaves it on the books anyways. If someone gets stopped for possessing a stun gun, the cops take it. There won't be a crime, but they have their newspaper headlines (bad guy with stun gun stopped by alert officer). If the person carrying the stun gun were an LTC holder than I am guessing the suitability clause could be used. The only people that are helped are low ranking criminals. They get their customary slap on the wrist and back out onto the street. In the end 2 classes of people will have stun guns, criminals, and cops.

I sometimes wonder if this is the reason why we never seem to see many gun cases before the high court? I just can't see the legislature doing anything about this. Maybe I'm wrong, but until lots of little old ladies start getting zapped by purse snatchers, I just don't see them doing anything.

 

[Coyote33]

Where is this one at?

 

[jtnf]

Where is this one at?

Massive, massive win. Like, (8 person) unanimous decision from SCOTUS with an EPIC slapdown concurring opinion from Alito.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caetano_v._Massachusetts

PDF of the decision and concurring opinion.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf

 

[jtnf]

This reasoning defies our decision in Heller, which rejected as “bordering on the frivolous” the argument “that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.” 554 U. S., at 582. The decision below also does a grave disservice to vulnerable individuals like Caetano who must defend themselves because the State will not.

(emphasis added)

Although the Supreme Judicial Court professed to apply Heller, each step of its analysis defied Heller’s reasoning.

The state court repeatedly framed the question before it as whether a particular weapon was “‘in common use at the time’ of enactment of the Second Amendment.” In Heller, we emphatically rejected such a formulation. We found the argument “that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment” not merely wrong, but “bordering on the frivolous.” Instead, we 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.” Ibid. (emphasis added). It is hard to imagine language speaking more directly to the point. Yet the Supreme Judicial Court did not so much as mention it.

 

[Waher]

See the follow-up Comm2A case suing the state in federal court to enforce the win. SJC, legislature, and AG are openly ignoring the SCotUS ruling.

 

[Chevy 2 65]

(emphasis added)

That is awesome !!

 

[Coyote33]

Thanks. I was going through some stuff and saw this, and wasn't sure if it was one of the ones we already saw in another post somewhere.

See the follow-up Comm2A case suing the state in federal court to enforce the win. SJC, legislature, and AG are openly ignoring the SCotUS ruling.

National Guard troops under orders from President Dwight D. Eisenhower enforced the desegregation of Little Rock Central High School in Arkansas.

 

[swatgig]

The sad part about this is that I was in court today. My client's co-defendant was charged with possession of a stun gun. Codefendant's lawyer never heard of Caetano.

 

[Coyote33]

The sad part about this is that I was in court today. My client's co-defendant was charged with possession of a stun gun. Codefendant's lawyer never heard of Caetano.

Let me know if you need an assistant when you put on your $100 workshop on "Stun Gun Law Updates for Lawyers".

;-)

 

[ProGun]

The sad part about this is that I was in court today. My client's co-defendant was charged with possession of a stun gun. Codefendant's lawyer never heard of Caetano.

So the SCOTUS say's it's a protected right, yet MA is still prosecuting people for this? Is anyone rotting in jail for this?!

Seriously, WTF, what's the point in winning a case at SCOTUS and the state(s) just ignoring it. We are beyond ****ed if this shit stands.

 

[Coyote33]

So the SCOTUS say's it's a protected right, yet MA is still prosecuting people for this? Is anyone rotting in jail for this?!

Seriously, WTF, what's the point in winning a case at SCOTUS and the state(s) just ignoring it. We are beyond ****ed if this shit stands.

I'll repeat my earlier quote, only paraphrase the link:

National Guard troops under orders from President enforced the Supreme Court's decision.

Trump needs to step it up a bit in his support of CIVIL RIGHTS!

 

[milktree]

The sad part about this is that I was in court today. My client's co-defendant was charged with possession of a stun gun. Codefendant's lawyer never heard of Caetano.

Gah! That's appalling... There's no legal reason why you can't inform your client's co-defendant's lawyer of this, right?

 

[swatgig]

I hope not, cuz I did

 

[Chevy 2 65]

The sad part about this is that I was in court today. My client's co-defendant was charged with possession of a stun gun. Codefendant's lawyer never heard of Caetano.

Neither has the state !

 

[drgrant]

One thing I have noticed about the gun grabbers is that they are clever in how they use the law. Whenever they sense a defeat, they immediately acquiesce. I guess they figure it's easier to restore one person's rights, then to lose their position. I'd be willing to venture that if the situation ever got so far out of hand that someone found themselves on the wrong side of the AG's directive, and they sensed a big loss, they would pull out of the case.

IMHO because of Heller this is a tactical thing, on their part. Krispy Kreme used this in NJ partly because of political aspirations, but also, I firmly believe some of his old anti gun cohorts were calling him up on the phone telling him to "let that black broad off the hook" that drove into NJ with the gun in her purse, etc... becasue the last thing they want is a perfect sympathetic plaintiff to take some kind of a 2A case into the federal court system.

My bet in MA, unless something comes down where the state gets bitchslapped (again) the stun gun thing will be a tack on / throwaway charge (basically, as a way to bluff-press attorneys that don't know any better) but they will do a bologna throwing sesh while booking/processing the arrested person and just make some other bullshit they can get them on. Disabling charges rarely come standing alone... Or like what rob suggested earlier- put it on there and throw it out there as a CWOF... so that the joe averageperson type will just
suck for the CWOF exit "because its way cheaper".

-Mike

 

[RG Sports]

I read an article that scotus recently said the stun gun ban in N.J. was unconstitutional.

 

[Palladin]

I read an article that scotus recently said the stun gun ban in N.J. was unconstitutional.

http://www.northjersey.com/story/news/new-jersey/2017/10/20/stun-gun-nj-taser/781019001/

yeah, they based it on the fact that SCOTUS found it unconstitutional in Mass. LMAO

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

I read an article that scotus recently said the stun gun ban in N.J. was unconstitutional.

NO. The Supreme Court was not involved with that case. I believe that the NJ challenge was brought in state court and the NJ AG conceded that the NJ was likely unconstitutional.

BTW, Tasers were featured on Woot today: https://www.woot.com/category/sport?ref=w_gh_sp_7

 

[dans]

BTW, Tasers were featured on Woot today: https://www.woot.com/category/sport?ref=w_gh_sp_7

Will they ship to MA?

 

[swatgig]

Will they ship to MA?

You owe me a new keyboard

 

[fishgutzy]

So the SCOTUS say's it's a protected right, yet MA is still prosecuting people for this? Is anyone rotting in jail for this?!

Seriously, WTF, what's the point in winning a case at SCOTUS and the state(s) just ignoring it. We are beyond ****ed if this shit stands.

They are taking their cues from The Obama Precedent. Obama, on several occasions ignored the courts that ruled against him.

 

[Coyote33]

1. Get in Touch with The White House
2. Write or Call the White House