Bang / Guns
See other Bang / Guns Articles
Title: You have the right to bear arms, not “electrical” arms, court declares (Massachusetts)
Source:
Ars Technica
URL Source: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/ ... lectrical-arms-court-declares/
Published: Mar 8, 2015
Author: David Kravets
Post Date: 2015-03-08 18:13:05 by Hondo68
Keywords: Mittachusetts, not in common use, time of 2nd amendment
Views: 7228
Comments: 31
Massachusetts' ban on the private possession of stun guns—an "electrical weapon" under the statute—does not violate the Second Amendment right to bear arms, the state's top court has ruled. The decision says (PDF) that the US Constitution's framers never envisioned the modern stun-gun device, first patented in 1972. The top court said stun guns are not suitable for military use, and that it did not matter whether state lawmakers have approved the possession of handguns outside the home. Nevertheless, we note that stun guns deliver a charge of up to 50,000 volts. They are designed to incapacitate a target by causing disabling pain, uncontrolled muscular contractions, and general disruption of the central nervous system.... It is difficult to detect clear signs of use and misuse of stun guns, unlike handguns. Stun guns can deliver repeated or prolonged shocks without leaving marks. ...The Legislature rationally could ban their use in the interest of public health, safety, or welfare. Removing from public access devices that can incapacitate, injure, or kill a person by disrupting the central nervous system with minimal detection is a classic legislative basis supporting rationality. It is immaterial that the Legislature has not banned weapons that are more lethal. Mathematical precision by the Legislature is not constitutionally required. The court, ruling in the case of a Massachusetts woman caught with stun gun, said the stun gun is a "thoroughly modern invention" not protected by the Second Amendment, although handguns are protected. Moreover, although modern handguns were not in common use at the time of enactment of the Second Amendment, their basic function has not changed: many are readily adaptable to military use in the same way that their predecessors were used prior to the enactment. A stun gun, by contrast, is a thoroughly modern invention. Even were we to view stun guns through a contemporary lens for purposes of our analysis, there is nothing in the record to suggest that they are readily adaptable to use in the military. Indeed, the record indicates "they are ineffective for . . . hunting or target shooting." Because the stun gun that the defendant possessed is both dangerous per se at common law and unusual, but was not in common use at the time of the enactment of the Second Amendment, we conclude that stun guns fall outside the protection of the Second Amendment. The decision, the most recent analysis of the Second Amendment by any top court, comes as all types of and manner of weapons are being constructed at home via 3D printing technology. The latest showdown about those weapons surfaced last month, when FedEx refused to ship a box that makes homemade metal semi-automatic rifles. The Massachusetts case, decided last week, concerned Jaime Caetano, who lives in one of five states making it illegal for private citizens to posses stun guns. She appealed her 2013 conviction, on Second Amendment and self-defense grounds, claiming she had a right to the weapon to protect herself from what she said was an abusive father of her children. The penalty for breaching the law carries up to a 2.5-year maximum jail term. She was caught with the device outside a grocery store after allowing the authorities, who were looking for a shoplifter, to search her purse. The law in question, the court said, forbids the private possession of a "portable device or weapon from which an electrical current, impulse, wave or beam may be directed, which current, impulse, wave or beam is designed to incapacitate temporarily, injure or kill" except by specified public officers or suppliers of such devices, if possession is "necessary to the supply or sale of the device or weapon" to agencies utilizing it. In 2008, the US Supreme Court, in a decision known as Heller (PDF), overturned a District of Columbia statute and ruled that a ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense." Now, every state allows people to carry weapons of sorts, some with or without permits. The Massachusetts top court concluded that the woman could have applied for a permit to carry a concealed weapon, like a handgun instead. "Barring any cause for disqualification the defendant could have applied for a license to carry a firearm," the court ruled. The court added that, "possession of mace or pepper spray for self-defense no longer requires a license." That seems strange, according to Michael E. Rosman, general counsel for the Center for Individual Rights in Washington, D.C. In Massachusetts, he told the Boston Globe, the public is "permitted with a license to have guns and carry guns. It makes no sense to say you shouldn’t be allowed to have a weapon that you can defend yourself with, but is less dangerous to the attacker." The ban on stun guns, he told the Globe, is “perverse” because they are less lethal than other weapons. The public, he said, is “being pushed into handgun possession by the ban on stun guns.”
Poster Comment: The founding fathers didn't have stun guns, so you can't have one either. /s
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: hondo68 (#0)
The intent of the US Constitution was not about 0bama Kare, either. So how does it exist?
Obama care exists because the progressive regime ignores our Constitution, and has been doing so since the early 1900's.
Similar to government's interpretation of the US Constitution that new modern defensive weaponry are the right of the government and not the citizenry at large. There was a time, when the individual citizen was powerful before government; today, the individual citizen is nothing more than a tax slave that may have privileges based on government whim.
So stun guns are prohibited because they're not suitable for military use. And machine guns, which ARE suitable for military use, are also banned. The courts are so screwed up.
What? United States v. Miller limits the type of weapons to which the right applies to those "in common use for lawful purposes", not those in common use at the time of the enactment of the Second Amendment. The courts are so screwed up.
Naw. These days the rules are made up based on whim and application of only lawful authority ... or don't you notice?
As I remember it, the non-existent (empty chair) Miller defense failed to provide proof of "military utility" for the short shotgun. It's been going back and forth between military utility, and sporting purposes ever since. Both are illegal infringements, of course. "keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is the law.
I did notice what United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) actually said: "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument." Meaning, the second amendment only protected weapons having "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia".
Correct. Not that they could have.
misterwhite --- Correct. Not that they could have. Here we have it again, sports fans.. misterwhite believes that a military use for the short shotgun cannot be proved. Apparently he's unaware of the trench shotguns used in WWI.
"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument." Yeah, proof positive about post modern era American interpretations offering another conundrum to the citizenry while maintaining complete agreement towards a police state mentality. They are in defiance of the intent of and about the US Constitution concerning the fundamental principles of individual rights and liberties.
How long until we hear from a court that free speech is indeed protected, but since the founders did not anticipate computers or the internet, it can be regulated or banned?
Try and stay up with the FCC and NSA, will ya? It has been in the works for decades.
The Second Amendment has nothing to do with self-defense,gun collection,or hunting. It was written and became the 2nd Amendment because the Founding Fathers wanted the common citizens to have full access to military-grade weapons in case of invasion by a foreign power,or in case the citizens needed to overthrow a corrupt government. I like this determination,and can't wait until someone appeals to the Mass SC to have their right to own and possess a full-auto M-4.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
And machine guns, which ARE suitable for military use, are also banned. The Mass SC is now on record as stating that the 2nd Amendment protects the RIGHTS of citizens to own military grade weapons. If the NRA doesn't use this ruling to get gun laws repealed up there,they suck even more than I think,which may be impossible.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
United States v. Miller limits the type of weapons to which the right applies to those "in common use for lawful purposes" Their ruling against Miller in 1939 found him guilty of owning or possessing a sawn-off shotgun because the Justices,none of whom had ever served a single day in the military,determined that the 2nd Amendment protected the rights of citizens to ONLY own and possess weapons suitable for military use. Being numbnuts appointed by King Franklin,they obviously were completely unaware of all the Browning and Remington "trench guns" issued in WW-1 and WW-2. Not that it made any difference because they issued their ruling in a courtroom empty of everyone but themselves and the state attorney. Neither Miller nor his lawyer were there because neither was told they would be ruling on the case that day.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
You remember wrong. He failed to object because the court failed to notify them of the court date. He was going about his daily business several states away the day they issued that ruling,and complained about it afterwards. Not that it did him any good because they get to pick and choose which cases and appeals they will listen to.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
So were the hack SC justices,and there was no one there to tell them any different.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
I upgrade my stun gun every two years. I just bought a beauty. It looks like a flashlight and can actually function as one. High voltage. I can go anywhere I like. I don't worry about parking lots anymore. This gun is capable of downing my 6'3" former football player boyfriend in 2 seconds flat. I have a God given right to protect and defend myself! They will not take that away from me.
‘the Medieval Christian threat is under control’
A reply more effective than "Not tonight, dear, I have a headache". LOL.
Or "coin the money" versus "bank notes". Or freedom of press when presses are not used anymore.
hondo68,--- "As I remember it, the non-existent (empty chair) Miller defense failed to provide proof of "military utility" for the short shotgun." misterwhite --- Correct. Not that they could have. Here we have it again, sports fans.. misterwhite believes that a military use for the short shotgun cannot be proved. Apparently he's unaware of the trench shotguns used in WWI. Yet misterwhite insists that short shotguns can be banned by congress. --- And typically, refuses to even explain his anti-gun position.
David used a slingshot and a rock to slay Goliath. Yes, short shotguns were used by the military, but our right to keep and bear arms is not dependent on that, or any other straw-man argument. Frankly, I don't give a damn what the paid military used in WW I.
No one that has a rational view of what the 2nd Amendment means, does care.. But the anti-gun nuts like misterwhite do...And they use these straw men to infringe. We can only pity them for their mental problems.
You should because the US Supreme Court ruled that MILITARY GRADE WEAPONS were the very weapons that citizen ownership of was protected by the 2nd Amendment. Which means any weapon carried by the individual soldier is legal to own and possess in America by ANY American citizen with no restrictions,including full-auto weapons. If the left has to recognize that machine gun ownership is protected by the Second Amendment,just how silly will they look trying to get AR-15's banned? What will their argument be,that a semi-auto rifle is more dangerous and deadly than a full-auto rifle? BTW,this is the argument that has the left filling their Depends,as they shriek hysterically about "Yah,and everybody will be armed with a nuclear bomb if that were true,yadda,yadda,yadda." They cover their ears with their hands and start shrieking even louder when you remind that of the "typical of the typical infantry soldier" means just that,and the typical infantry soldier doesn't carry nuclear bombs or 175mm howitzers on his shoulder. Or any other crew-served weapon. Crew-served weapons were mostly owned by cities/towns in Revolutionary days,and the people assigned to operate them showed up at muster and rolled them out of storage.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
No one that has a rational view of what the 2nd Amendment means, does care.. I care,because it has a direct connection to our Second Amendment Rights.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
No. Short shotguns of the type owned by Miller were NOT used by the military in WWI. Miller carried a Stevens sawed-off, double-barreled shotgun (pictured below) which the military determined served no useful purpose. The military instead went with the Winchester Model 1897 (aka Model 97 Trench Gun) 5-round+1 pump- action shotgun with a 20" barrel, heat shield, bayonet lug, and sling swivels: Obviously, the military simply laughed at Miller's gun. But TP, in all his ignorance, would have you believe that Miller's gun had serious military use. Ignore that clown already.
No one that has a rational view of what the 2nd Amendment means, does care.. But the anti-gun nuts like misterwhite do...And they use these straw men to infringe. Whitey is making this up. The US military has never so determined. -- In fact, many individuals in Civil war calvery units used dbl-sawed offs in combat. Obviously whitey does, -- and we can only wonder why he supports the ban on them. Short shotguns still have a military use, as many recent vets will testify. Whitey makes a clown of himself by supporting the ban on sawed-offs.
A cant hide behind the bozo repost. Yes, short shotguns were used by the military, but our right to keep and bear arms is not dependent on that, or any other straw-man argument. --- Frankly, I don't give a damn what the paid military used in WW I. -- hondo68 TPaine: No one that has a rational view of what the 2nd Amendment means, does care.. But the anti-gun nuts like misterwhite do...And they use these straw men to infringe. misterwhite --- No. Short shotguns of the type owned by Miller were NOT used by the military in WWI. Miller carried a Stevens sawed-off, double-barreled shotgun (pictured below) which the military determined served no useful purpose. TPaine: Whitey is making this up. The US military has never so determined. -- In fact, many individuals in Civil war calvery units used dbl-sawed offs in combat. misterwhite: Then military instead went with the Winchester Model 1897 (aka Model 97 Trench Gun) 5-round+1 pump- action shotgun with a 20" barrel, heat shield, bayonet lug, and sling swivels: --- Obviously, the military simply laughed at Miller's gun. TPaine: Obviously whitey does, -- and we can only wonder why he supports the ban on them. Whitey: But TP, in all his ignorance, would have you believe that Miller's gun had serious military use. Ignore that clown already. TPaine: Short shotguns still have a military use, as many recent vets will testify. Whitey makes a clown of himself by supporting the ban on sawed-offs.
In United States v. Miller (1939), the court was using the standard of "in common use at the time" and "suitable for military use" in order to determine if a weapon was protected by the second amendment from federal infringement. They determined, correctly, that Miller's sawed-off was not and that Miller should have registered it as required by the National Firearms Act of 1934. To argue that "shotguns could be used by the military" is ignorant and misses the point. The military at the time chose the Model 97, not some sawed-off double barrel. Obviously the military believed Miller's weapon was unsuitable. And so did the court. Losing that argument, we're then told that "shotguns" were used in the Civil War. That's a) irrelevant, and b) not true. Not sawed-off shotguns. But all of that totally misses the point -- Why was the U.S. Supreme Court using "suitable for military use" as the standard? Hmmmmm?
Short shotguns still have a military use, as many recent vets will testify. Whitey makes a clown of himself by supporting the 1934 ban on sawed-off shotguns. And using that 'standard' was wrong, as the SCOTUS implied in their most recent opinion in Heller. Their determination was only 'correct' on the basis that the NFA of '34 is constitutional. The recent Heller Opinion makes that act questionable, and liable to being overturned. This opinion is held by the anti-gun community, true. -- THUS, misterwhite admits he supports this anti-constitutional view.. Sawed-off muzzle loading shotguns in horse holsters were not uncommon among Calvary troops in the civil war. -- This argument is not 'lost', -- but true, it is irrelevant to the 2nd Amendment argument, as per Heller. Because they were trying to establish the progressive era point that govt can prohibit any damn thing (or behavior) for any damn reason. Today's court is trying to restore constitutional reality to politics in the USA, --- and is still opposed by the whiteys of this world.
#2. To: Pridie.Nones (#1)
The intent of the US Constitution was not about 0bama Kare, either. So how does it exist?
#3. To: tpaine (#2)
#4. To: hondo68 (#0)
"The top court said stun guns are not suitable for military use ..."
#5. To: hondo68 (#0)
"but was not in common use at the time of the enactment of the Second Amendment"
#6. To: misterwhite (#5)
"in common use for lawful purposes"
#7. To: misterwhite, *Bang List* (#5)
(Edited)
Miller limits the type of weapons to which the right applies to those "in common use for lawful purposes"
The D&R terrorists hate us because we're free, to vote second party
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#8. To: Pridie.Nones (#6)
"Naw. These days the rules are made up based on whim and application of only lawful authority ... or don't you notice?"
#9. To: hondo68 (#7)
"As I remember it, the non-existent (empty chair) Miller defense failed to provide proof of "military utility" for the short shotgun."
#10. To: hondo68, Y'ALL, misterwhite supports Miller infringements. (#7)
"As I remember it, the non-existent (empty chair) Miller defense failed to provide proof of "military utility" for the short shotgun."
#11. To: misterwhite (#8)
I did notice what United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) actually said:
#12. To: hondo68 (#0)
#13. To: jeremiad (#12)
#14. To: hondo68 (#0)
The founding fathers didn't have stun guns, so you can't have one either. /s (1 image)
#15. To: misterwhite (#4)
So stun guns are prohibited because they're not suitable for military use.
#16. To: misterwhite (#5)
What?
#17. To: hondo68 (#7)
As I remember it, the non-existent (empty chair) Miller defense failed to provide proof of "military utility" for the short shotgun.
#18. To: tpaine (#10)
Apparently he's unaware of the trench shotguns used in WWI.
#19. To: hondo68 (#0)
#20. To: out damned spot (#19)
This gun is capable of downing my 6'3" former football player boyfriend in 2 seconds flat.
#21. To: Pridie.Nones (#3)
(Edited)
#22. To: sneakypete, hondo68, Y'ALL, misterwhite, supports Miller infringements (#18)
So were the hack SC justices,and there was no one there to tell them any different. --- sneakypete
#23. To: tpaine, mistertyrant (#22)
he's unaware of the trench shotguns used in WWI
The D&R terrorists hate us because we're free, to vote second party
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#24. To: hondo68, Y'ALL, misterwhite, an object of pity (#23)
Frankly, I don't give a damn what the paid military used in WW I.
#25. To: hondo68 (#23)
Frankly, I don't give a damn what the paid military used in WW I.
#26. To: tpaine (#24)
Frankly, I don't give a damn what the paid military used in WW I.
#27. To: hondo68 (#23)
"Yes, short shotguns were used by the military"
.jpg/400px-
Stevens_311_(Sawed_Off).jpg)
#28. To: Y'ALL, misterwhite, tries to explain short shotgun bans, and fails.. (#27)
Yes, short shotguns were used by the military, but our right to keep and bear arms is not dependent on that, or any other straw-man argument. --- Frankly, I don't give a damn what the paid military used in WW I. -- hondo68
misterwhite --- No. Short shotguns of the type owned by Miller were NOT used by the military in WWI. Miller carried a Stevens sawed-off, double-barreled shotgun (pictured below) which the military determined served no useful purpose.
Then military instead went with the Winchester Model 1897 (aka Model 97 Trench Gun) 5-round+1 pump- action shotgun with a 20" barrel, heat shield, bayonet lug, and sling swivels: --- Obviously, the military simply laughed at Miller's gun.
But TP, in all his ignorance, would have you believe that Miller's gun had serious military use. Ignore that clown already.
#29. To: tpaine, misterwhite (#28)
#30. To: Dead Culture Watch (#29)
Confederate cavalryman
with muzzle-loading shotgun
#31. To: Y'ALL, misterwhite, still trying to prove the NFA of 1934 is constitutional. (#30)
In United States v. Miller (1939), the court was using the standard of "in common use at the time" and "suitable for military use" in order to determine if a weapon was protected by the second amendment from federal infringement.
They determined, correctly, that Miller's sawed-off was not and that Miller should have registered it as required by the National Firearms Act of 1934.
To argue that "shotguns could be used by the military" is ignorant and misses the point. The military at the time chose the Model 97, not some sawed-off double barrel. Obviously the military believed Miller's weapon was unsuitable. And so did the court.
Losing that argument, we're then told that "shotguns" were used in the Civil War. That's a) irrelevant, and b) not true. Not sawed-off shotguns.
But all of that totally misses the point -- Why was the U.S. Supreme Court using "suitable for military use" as the standard? Hmmmmm?
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]