Stun Gun Challenge (Martel v. Healey)

[EMTDAD]

If this argument was put into Excel it would loose it's mind

or for us old timers, it's an endless DO loop in BASIC or FORTRAN.. LOL

 

[Palladin]

didn't she read Caetano?

 

[Al-Jim19]

It seems like the AG has little chance of winning this, am I way off base?

 

[Rob Boudrie]

or for us old timers, it's an endless DO loop in BASIC or FORTRAN.. LOL

Like the programmer whose wife said "While you are at the supermarket, get milk". He never returned.

 

[firestorm]

They use it to try proving another point but this line " Under the test, modern-day versions of weapons
originally understood to fall within the Second Amendment’s scope are constitutionally protected. " is the same argument I would use to take away restrictions on artillery and warships of all types as both were covered by the second amendment at the time of it's ratification.

 

[inkdesigner]

It seems like the AG has little chance of winning this, am I way off base?

To be honest, I dont think she cares if she loses. She will just file an appeals until they run out, in the hopes that her unlimited pocketbook will last longer than everyone elses and they just give because the either ran out of cash or just dont think it is worth it anymore.

 

[swatgig]

She really cited a Colt AR-15 as a weapon in common use? This is the same lawyer defending the Assault Weapon Ban.

 

[Al-Jim19]

She really cited a Colt AR-15 as a weapon in common use? This is the same lawyer defending the Assault Weapon Ban.

Let's hope that contradiction is highlighted in court further down the road.

 

[Horrible]

Let's hope that contradiction is highlighted in court further down the road.

I hope that Dimples loses the AWB challenge on account of this!

 

[Horrible]

She really cited a Colt AR-15 as a weapon in common use? This is the same lawyer defending the Assault Weapon Ban.

Yup

With respect to the popularity test, the plaintiffs agree that, in determining whether a
particular weapon is in common use today, courts typically look to the total numbers of a particular
weapon in circulation and the percentage of the U.S. population that possesses the weapon. See
Pltf’s Opp. at 6 (“[R]aw numbers, percentages, and number of jurisdictions can all be relevant
inquiries depending on the weapons considered.”). Nevertheless, the plaintiffs claim that it “makes
no sense [for this Court] to rely on raw numbers or percentages” because Tasers can be expensive,
costing $1,000, so few people have them. Id. The plaintiffs therefore urge this Court to determine
whether electrical weapons are in common use today by looking only to the number of jurisdictions
that permit civilian possession. Id. at 6–7.

For multiple reasons, this argument is misplaced. First, even when a banned weapon is
expensive, courts still examine the total number of weapons in circulation and the percentage of
the U.S. population that owns the weapon when applying the popularity test. For example, assault
1 See D. Zipes, Sudden Cardiac Arrest and Death Following Application of Shocks from an
Electronic Control Device, 125 CIRCULATION 2417, 2417 (2012) (Dkt. No. 27, Ex. B).
Case 1:17-cv-10248-DPW Document 34 Filed 07/17/17 Page 4 of 12
5
weapons, like electrical weapons, can be expensive: The Colt AR-15, a prototypical assault
weapon, see G.L. c. 140, § 121, costs over $1,000. See Colt Domestic MSRP Price List 2017, at
4, available at www.colt.com (“2017 Colt Consumer Price List”) (Colt AR-15 costs $1,099).
Nevertheless, in assessing whether assault weapons are in common use today, courts look to data
on the absolute numbers of assault weapons in circulation and the percentage of the U.S.
population with an assault weapons. See, e.g., NYSRPA, 804 F.3d at 255–56; Heller II, 670 F.3d
at 1261.

 

[MachineHead]

She really cited a Colt AR-15 as a weapon in common use? This is the same lawyer defending the Assault Weapon Ban.

Pretty careless thing to do for the "People's Lawyer", IMHO.

Let's hope that contradiction is highlighted in court further down the road.

That and this: in her own words, nonetheless.

Written in her Opinion article 7/20/2016
https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion...t-weapons-ban/eEvOBklTriWcGznmXqSpYM/amp.html

Somebody archive.org this article before it disappears. I'm about to get on the road.

 

[pastera]

Furthermore, regardless of whether Tasers were once regulated by the Bureau of Alcohol,Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (“ATF”), today Tasers are not classified as “firearms” subjectto ATF regulation.1 For these reasons, and the additional reasons stated in the Attorney General’sopening brief, Tasers and stun guns are not lineal descendants of any weapon in common use atthe time the Second Amendment was ratified.

Black powder arms are not firearms per the ATF

a muzzle loading weapon that meets the definition of an “antique firearm” is not a firearm andmay lawfully be received and possessed by a prohibited person under the GCA.In addition, the GCA defines the term “ammunition” to mean “ammunition or cartridge cases,primers, bullets, or propellant powder designed for use in any firearm.” Because an “antique firearm”is not a “firearm,” it would is lawful for a prohibited person to receive or possess black powder designed for use in an “antique firearm.”

So her argument that Tasers and stun guns can't be lineal descendants because the ATF doesn't regulate them is idiotic - the ATF doesn't regulate the actual arms in common use at the time of ratification.

The opening statement from Caetano

PER CURIAM.The Court has held that “the Second Amendment extends,prima facie, to all instruments that constitutebearable arms, even those that were not in existence atthe time of the founding,” District of Columbia v. Heller,554 U. S. 570, 582 (2008), and that this “Second Amendmentright is fully applicable to the States,” McDonald v.Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 750 (2010).

Is she trying to get Cert at SCOTUS for a massive smackdown on appeal? Or is the local circuit going to be insulted enough to bust her chops right here?

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Apparently there's another stun gun case in front of the SJC. Another criminal case with the same public defender as in Caetano.

Commonwealth v. Jorge Ramirez SJC-12340 Video: http://www.suffolk.edu/sjc/pop.php?csnum=SJC_12340 Check out at 26:30 where the ADA opens with stun guns are not protected because they are "dangerous AND unusual".

Unfortunately, whatever the SJC decides, this is going to have an impact on our federal challenge to the MA stun gun ban.

BTW, Caetano has its own wikipedia page: Caetano v. Massachusetts - Wikipedia

 

[Waher]

If the SJC rules in blatant disregard for the SCotUS order, can we realistically expect any response from the feds?

 

[RImike]

It appears that the SJC were tipping their hats so to speak to the ADA that they won't be ruling in her favor.

 

[Cap'n Mike]

The brief prepared by Attorney Keehn seems on par with his work in Caetano.
ADA Learys brief seems to be more tortured and twisted than the Original Mass SJC ruling in Caetano.

I bet the SJC hand picked this case, as the defendant is most likely a scumbag who is not very sympathetic, much like Hubert Davis and Jack Miller but unlike Jamie Caetano.

 

[terraformer]

If the SJC rules in blatant disregard for the SCotUS order, can we realistically expect any response from the feds?

No.

 

[terraformer]

I bet the SJC hand picked this case, as the defendant is most likely a scumbag who is not very sympathetic, much like Hubert Davis and Jack Miller but unlike Jamie Caetano.

Yes, they absolutely did. They jumped this case to the head of the line via reservation and report on an interlocutory appeal straight to the SJC. Normal procedure in a case where there were other charges would have been let it go through the normal path. They took this case to squelch our federal case. When the impartial arbiters are actively working for one side, this isn't a court system, it's a rubber stamp.

 

[JJ4]

Yes, they absolutely did. They jumped this case to the head of the line via reservation and report on an interlocutory appeal straight to the SJC. Normal procedure in a case where there were other charges would have been let it go through the normal path. They took this case to squelch our federal case. When the impartial arbiters are actively working for one side, this isn't a court system, it's a rubber stamp.

This really irks me. The judiciary has a clear set of boundaries related to deciding the law. What they are doing is playing politics - picking cases out of the normal order of process for political purposes. This kind of behavior is outside their boundaries and, in my opinion, unethical.

I doubt an ethics complaint would go anywhere, especially since the motivations are likely not provable. But... there is an actual office for filing ethics complaints about judges in MA.

 

[Len-2A Training]

This really irks me. The judiciary has a clear set of boundaries related to deciding the law. What they are doing is playing politics - picking cases out of the normal order of process for political purposes. This kind of behavior is outside their boundaries and, in my opinion, unethical.

I doubt an ethics complaint would go anywhere, especially since the motivations are likely not provable. But... there is an actual office for filing ethics complaints about judges in MA.

Welcome to Mass!

You can complain but it will end up in the circular file with all the other ethics violation complaints about DAs, police, judges, AGs!

 

[RImike]

Welcome to Mass!

You can complain but it will end up in the circular file with all the other ethics violation complaints about DAs, police, judges, AGs!

I'm not sure what's worse, where it eventually ends up or the process of a kangaroo court of review that it goes through first.....

 

[Mike S]

SCOTUS v SJC - Round 2, commmminnnnnggg Upppppp! ...And in this corner, weighing in at a combined age of 577 years, the Supreeeeeeme Courttttt! And in the blue corner, the craziest state supreme court in the country, they got slapped down two years ago and are back for more, the S! J! C!

Ding ding! Begin!

 

[swatgig]

Yes, they absolutely did. They jumped this case to the head of the line via reservation and report on an interlocutory appeal straight to the SJC. Normal procedure in a case where there were other charges would have been let it go through the normal path. They took this case to squelch our federal case. When the impartial arbiters are actively working for one side, this isn't a court system, it's a rubber stamp.

I would love to see SCOTUS publish:

PER CURIAM.
For all the reasons cited in Caetano v. Massachusetts, 136 S. Ct. 1027 (2016), The judgment of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.

 

[amm5061]

Oh for shit's sake! These f***ing scumbags already got told off once, why do they need to make the same mistake again?

 

[Rob Boudrie]

What they are doing is playing politics - picking cases out of the normal order of process for political purposes.

This has been going on for ages. Back in 1976, there was a handgun ban referendum (GOAL was formed to defeat this, and did). The SMC (Supreme Marsupial Court) took the Davis case and issued a ruling specifically to pave the way for the ban, and make it clear such a ban would be consistent with MA law.

 

[xtry51]

Oh for shit's sake! These f***ing scumbags already got told off once, why do they need to make the same mistake again?

Because there is literally no punishment. Officials who vote for laws, state lawyers who defend them and judges who uphold cases that are later overturned should at minimum result in all those mentioned being immediately dismissed from their positions. There is no reason anyone who supports a law, or interpretation of a law, that is struck down should be left in office. Period. Personally I'd like to see a 10 year mandatory sentence and lifetime ban from holding any other public position for sedition tacked on as well.

 

[TLB]

Because there is literally no punishment. Officials who vote for laws, state lawyers who defend them and judges who uphold cases that are later overturned should at minimum result in all those mentioned being immediately dismissed from their positions. There is no reason anyone who supports a law, or interpretation of a law, that is struck down should be left in office. Period. Personally I'd like to see a 10 year mandatory sentence and lifetime ban from holding any other public position for sedition tacked on as well.

You are too kind IMO.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

After a year, there's finally a status conference schedule for next Friday July 13. I expect the judge will ask us if the case is moot given the SJC's recent decision and the anticipated enactment of of the ERPO bill that's on Baker's desk.

 

[milktree]

After a year, there's finally a status conference schedule for next Friday July 13. I expect the judge will ask us if the case is moot given the SJC's recent decision and the anticipated enactment of the ERPO bill that's on Baker's desk.

Doesn't ERPO make it impossible to buy new stun guns because they don't have a loaded chamber indicator or magazine disconnect and Maura hasn't blessed them?

 

[Alex9661]

Doesn't ERPO make it impossible to buy new stun guns because they don't have a loaded chamber indicator or magazine disconnect and Maura hasn't blessed them?

I think it makes it impossible to sell them.