Supreme Court REPUDIATES Massachussetts stun gun ban 8-0

[kilimanjaro]

Spats, those drooling knuckledraggers under the tinfoil hats are the distraction. While you are thanking God you were not born that stupid, the gun takers are sneaking up behind you.

 

[NJgunowner]

Since they came out in defense of "in common use" used in Heller not being limited to handguns, where does that leave things like magazine size restrictions, some states ban flash suppressors, etc? These things are in common use, so wouldn't they fall into the same category as tasers and stun guns, and hence be protected? Or am I just dreaming?

 

[johnwilliamson062]

This time, they all but said "You can't possibly be this ignorant. We know you're doing this on purpose. Go back, and get it right this time, you fools."

But what teeth do they have to back it up? They will, at minimum, put a ridiculous voltage or cycle limit on the things no manufacturer currently complies with in production models.

 

[tyme]

it involved a purely defensive weapon.

Less lethal? Yes. Purely defensive? I don't agree.

I don't think "purely defensive weapon" makes any sense. Any weapon that can stop or slow down an attacker can be used offensively, too.

A little bit of pain might not stop a victim from fighting back, but then again just the threat of an unknown weapon (most people have not tried a stun gun out on themselves) could easily convince a victim in some circumstances not to fight back, if the aggressor's demands are "reasonable" enough.

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

But what teeth do they have to back it up? They will, at minimum, put a ridiculous voltage or cycle limit on the things no manufacturer currently complies with in production models.

Well, yes, on the flip side, this is a small victory and hardly one at all in reality. The antis will do what they always do... change a few requirements or sentences of the law or rewrite the same basic ban from a different angle and start the whole process over.

It takes less than a day to write and pass a terrible law (see NY SAFE Act) and 10 years to get it through the courts and "defeat" it, only to have another one of the same effect passed and in effect 24 hours later.

The biggest failure of foresight from our Founders, IMO, was not seeing the likelihood of attacks against the Republic from "the inside", using the system against itself, combined with not imagining that We The People would so thoroughly and completely lose control of our local and state government.

We simply have no structure, beyond voting out the politicians who appoint the judges, for defeating these kinds of people and "we", collectively, are too ignorant and/or complacent and/or complicit to make that change.

 

[zukiphile]

As is true of so many issues, it is less important what conclusion a system produces than how it gets there. Striking a dopey law with a solid affirmation of the reasoning in Heller is a bigger victory than peeling back stun gun regulation.

The biggest failure of foresight from our Founders, IMO, was not seeing the likelihood of attacks against the Republic from "the inside", using the system against itself, combined with not imagining that We The People would so thoroughly and completely lose control of our local and state government.

I don't agree. I don't think 18th century founders anticipated the lunacy of universal suffrage. The specific problem with protection of the right described in the 2d Am. (and 1st, 4th and 5th) is improper infringement by elected legislators.

A representative government that represents quite a few nitwits is going to pose problems. Ultimately the bad actor on this issue is your fellow voters.

 

[johnwilliamson062]

I don't think 18th century founders anticipated the lunacy of universal suffrage.

Interesting. Whenever I suggest voting rights should be tied to paying taxes, as they were originally, I usually get some comments about lunacy. How much smarter would it have been to expand land ownership rights than to expand voting rights to those who pay no taxes?

Is there any sort of censure of the lower courts even possible? I bet the lower court judges are just laughing. The more exposure I have to the US system the more comical it seems. Not nearly as tragic as many other systems, but often more comical.

 

[carguychris]

Since they came out in defense of "in common use" used in Heller not being limited to handguns, where does that leave things like magazine size restrictions, some states ban flash suppressors, etc? These things are in common use, so wouldn't they fall into the same category as tasers and stun guns, and hence be protected?

I still think it's far from certain that the courts will ultimately rule in our favor on these issues, except in one particular aspect: I think that retroactive bans are probably not going to fly any longer, and restrictive states are going to be forced to enact grandfather clauses for such items.

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

I still think it's far from certain that the courts will ultimately rule in our favor on these issues, except in one particular aspect: I think that retroactive bans are probably not going to fly any longer, and restrictive states are going to be forced to enact grandfather clauses for such items.

Not only is it far from certain on the ruling, it's far from certain when or if the courts will even hear all those cases.

A person has to have Standing to bring suit. You can't just sue the government because you think the law is wrong. You first establish that it is likely that you will violate the law and also likely that you will be prosecuted for it.

On the question of "Common Use", we've already seen that when a law is long-standing enough (Think: NFA) then the law ITSELF becomes the reason why an item is not in common use and can therefore be regulated under the law that MADE IT not be in common use. Whether or not this is in fact a recognized legal principle, I doubt, but it is effectively true. "Machine guns" are not in common use because they are (basically) illegal and they are *allowed* to be illegal because it has been established that they are not in common use, even though they WOULD be in common use if they weren't illegal.

 

[zukiphile]

Whenever I suggest voting rights should be tied to paying taxes, as they were originally, I usually get some comments about lunacy. How much smarter would it have been to expand land ownership rights than to expand voting rights to those who pay no taxes?

My apologies in advance for windy context of things you likely already know.

Certainly some modern notions about individual rights due to all people or all citizens don't appear to have been shared by any responsible people in the 18th century, but the really enormous and basic difference is that attitude toward democracy.

Someone please correct me if I have this wrong, but my impression is that we (americans) started generating a lot of loose nonsense about fighting for or defending "democracy" beginning during WWI, but mostly in the years leading up to WWII. While the jacksonian revolution here and the manchester revolution in the UK were large practical steps to a sort of standardised suffrage, surely anyone who reads the COTUS should be able to discern that our government is largely a protection against democracy in any base sense, even as it provides for representation of the people and states that made the country work.

While many founding fathers were involved in agriculture and commerce, a lot of them also took the theory of government seriously enough to have dealt in the ideas of Locke and spartan ideals of disassociation of the interests of the governors from their motives in governing. By 1791, they also had some awareness of the horrors of mob rule in France.

One can in concept restrict suffrage to people who literally hold title to a piece of the country, or who have some other real interest in it other than citizenship. That doesn't guarantee a wise electorate, but it may allow for less manipulation of popular passions that played a role in making government such a problem here and elsewhere during the 20th century.

One wonders whether it is universal adult suffrage that allows the 2d Am. to be politically threatened by facile think of the children sorts of arguments.

 

[gc70]

The anonymous opinion "by the court" in Caetano can represent an unknown level of agreement from a bare majority to unanimity or can reflect agreement on an abbreviated conclusion (i.e. remanding a case) while the Justices hold widely differing views on the merits of a case.

A good example of a Per Curiam ruling is the Pentagon Papers case - New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971). The court issued a 10-sentence Per Curiam ruling ... which was accompanied by 6 concurring opinions and 3 dissenting opinions. Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000), was another Per Curiam ruling, with 4 dissenting opinions.

 

[North East Redneck]

Just wanted to reference a previous post stating that pepper spray is not allowed in Mass. A new law was signed by former Gov. Deval Patrick in September of 2014 removing the FID required to buy/posses defensive spray.
Purchase and possession is now legal by persons 18 and older.

 

[James K]

"There are very few circles where a female utilizing a weapon to defend herself from a man is not acceptable."

Numerous articles in "women's" magazines show that left-wing women find the idea of any woman having or using a gun in any circumstances for any purpose "not acceptable." The very same people who defend women's rights, do not believe that the right to bear arms is one of them. Incredibly, leftist "feminists" say that owning a gun is "un-feminine" and that women should rely on a man to defend them!!

I have always been both amused and amazed at the way the gun issue turns everyone around. Newspapers that defend freedom of the press support a ban on gun magazines. Opponents of the death penalty call for summary execution of gun owners. People who come out for the rights of minorities back laws to keep "those people" from owning guns. Interesting.

Jim

 

[Metal god]

Numerous articles in "women's" magazines show that left-wing women find the idea of any woman having or using a gun in any circumstances for any purpose "not acceptable." The very same people who defend women's rights, do not believe that the right to bear arms is one of them.

I have a few close family members that are on the far side of anti on this issue . In literally camp fire discussion they have brought up stats claiming more women are killed with there own self defense weapon then successfully defend them selves with them .

I made two comments that pretty much left them speechless

1) The stat is incomplete because every successful defense of life is not reported . I'm sure we all can think of many ways a women can stave off an attack just by brandishing a weapon .

2) They have to be willing to use it if drawing the weapon was not enough . I don't know this but I'd bet most that get killed or injured with there own weapon failed to use it when they had the chance .

Now to the real reason I started to post .

What if any effect do you guys think this ruling can have on a case like Peruta vs San Diego which is a conceal carry case at the 9th circuit now . We are waiting on a en-banc ruling . Do you think any of the justices will consider this ruling compelling enough to change there vote to are side . ?

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/view_video.php?pk_vid=0000007886
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/content/view.php?pk_id=0000000722

 

[Tom Servo]

The very same people who defend women's rights, do not believe that the right to bear arms is one of them.

Letty Pogrebin, founder of Ms. magazine wrote an article for The Nation in the 1980's in which she lamented Smith & Wesson's "Ladysmith" marketing campaign. Her assertion was that it gave women the illusion of being able to defend themselves.

She ran down the now-standard litany of imagined scenarios: that women would shoot the wrong person, that the gun would be taken away and used against them, that they may get depressed and use the gun on themselves...it goes on.

The implication is that women cannot and should not have the means to inflict violence because, goshdarnit, gals are just clumsy and panicky. I was surprised at the time (and continue to be) at the sheer chauvinism behind such a line of reasoning.

 

[A pause for the COZ]

I think we should learn something else from this case.
As defenders of the 2nd amendment. We should look hard to find cases that involve a woman who's 2nd amendment rights are being abused.
Push those cases to front and center.

It highlights the need for the rights by showing the most at risk threatened by the most dangerous.
Same thing with people of color, It could be shown how gun laws actually discriminate and are of them selves racist laws.

Bringing out the 50 year old white guy may be factually correct. But if we have learned any thing over the years.
The facts are only a very small portion of the fight.

 

[Armed_Chicagoan]

2) They have to be willing to use it if drawing the weapon was not enough . I don't know this but I'd bet most that get killed or injured with there own weapon failed to use it when they had the chance.

That's not where the antis get their numbers from, they get it by including suicides.

 

[Metal god]

I was only speaking to the data the anti's claim says women are more likely to be shot with there own firearm if they carry them for self defense . It is an interesting thought though if they were to some how include suicides in that number . If you were to include suicide in all deaths related to firearms . It would likely show all firearm owners are more likely to be killed with there own firearm .

She ran down the now-standard litany of imagined scenarios: that women would shoot the wrong person, that the gun would be taken away and used against them, that they may get depressed and use the gun on themselves...it goes on.

I don't know how many true anti's you all discuss and debate these issues with but I can tell you . That bold line above is in fact one of the reasons they use as to why they would not carry a firearm for self defense . I have two in my family that feel very strongly in that way as well as a few others I've talked with . It's the very reason I said if you are going to carry a self defense weapon you need to be willing to use it .

It may be that slight hesitation one might feel that if they pull the gun the attacker will get control of it . Is the delay that gets them killed . This has nothing to do with gender . It would be nice if all conflicts started outside of 21 feet and we had time to contemplate what's about to happen . If you start your defensive thought out that your going to loose , you have already lost . Again I've had a few women tell me they don't want to carry a gun because they are afraid it will be used on them . Sorry , I can't take credit for this line of thought . It has been told to me by anti gun women them selves . The majority of them carry pepper spray on there key chain though . One had a whistle .

 

[carguychris]

I don't know this but I'd bet most [women] that get killed or injured with there own weapon failed to use it when they had the chance.

That's not where the antis get their numbers from, they get it by including suicides.

Additionally—although the source escapes me—IIRC the so-called "study" also broadly included a large number of cases in which a woman simply had a firearm somewhere in her home and someone else shot her with it, regardless of the circumstances. As one might imagine, many of these cases involve some combination of gross negligence, drug abuse, drunkenness, domestic abuse, and criminal activity, often by people who can't lawfully possess a firearm in the first place. Whether or not the woman was actually attempting to defend herself at the time was not even considered.

It's the familiar Holding Law Abiding Gun Owners Directly Accountable for the Actions of Criminals thing. In a different respect, the "study" merely proves that it's stupid to surround yourself with violent thugs and junkies, and most of us don't need a study to teach us that.

 

[johnwilliamson062]

It is an interesting thought though if they were to some how include suicides in that number . If you were to include suicide in all deaths related to firearms . It would likely show all firearm owners are more likely to be killed with there own firearm .

They do. Even if the person buys the gun the day they commit suicide specifically in order to commit suicide.