-
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***
Any pepper spray legal to publically carry in MA without any license?
- Thread starter CAESAR
- Start date
It is only a couple of months old. It is their non-leo side of PepperBall Products new pistol the TCP.
PepperBall® - Non-Lethal Weapons and Training
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2011
- Messages
- 2,135
- Likes
- 2,428
.
AHM
NES Member
For the dog walkers, woods walkers or whomever...
(Took forever for the video to load in my browser this morning. Just staring at the intro frame for several minutes, you had me thinking the company had entered into an exclusive protection contract with S'ngac, the chatty violet gas of Lovecraft's Cthulhu Mythos).
The code's language could be a blind spot,
it could reflect that the institution has a special relationship with students,
it could be an acknowledgement that students frequently present with skulls full of mush.
The law is an ass, but once having read the relevant section of Farrell,
it's pretty obvious where it's coming from:
Assignments of error 54 and 55 concern the denial by the judge of the defendant's motion that the jury be directed to return a verdict of not guilty on count 1 of indictment No. 1811 and on indictment No. 1812, charging in each instance an assault with a dangerous weapon, to wit: a lighted cigarette. The contention of the defendant is that a lighted cigarette is not a "dangerous weapon" within the meaning of G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 265, Sections 14, 15A, the basis of the indictments just referred to.
The judge instructed the jury as follows: "A dangerous weapon, in legal definition, is any instrument or instrumentality so constructed or so used as to be likely to produce death or great bodily harm. It may also be defined as an instrument or instrumentality which, because of the manner in which it is used, or attempted to be used, endangers the life or inflicts great bodily harm; or is calculated as likely to produce death or serious bodily injury. An instrument or instrumentality most innocent appearing and harmless in and of itself may be used in such a dangerous and harmful manner, may be used in such a manner that it causes such serious bodily injury that because of such manner of use . . . you would be warranted in finding that such an instrument or instrumentality was a dangerous weapon within the meaning of the law." The judge left it to the jury to determine whether upon the evidence the lighted cigarettes as used by the defendant were in fact dangerous weapons. The instructions of the judge as to the subject matter were adequate and correct. Although a lighted cigarette is not a dangerous weapon when used for the purposes for which it is intended, it may become such, as the judge instructed the jury, by the manner in which it is used. Commonwealth v. Drew, 4 Mass. 391, 395-396. People v. Goolsby, 284 Mich. 375, 378. [Note p615-1] Lighted cigarettes not being in themselves dangerous weapons, the question whether as used in the present case they were dangerous weapons was one of fact for the jury. Commonwealth v. Drew, 4 Mass. 391, 396. State v. Bloom, 91 Kans. 156, 158. United States v. Small, 2 Curt. C. C. 241, 244. Rex v. Noakes, 5 C. & P. 326, 328.
The judge instructed the jury as follows: "A dangerous weapon, in legal definition, is any instrument or instrumentality so constructed or so used as to be likely to produce death or great bodily harm. It may also be defined as an instrument or instrumentality which, because of the manner in which it is used, or attempted to be used, endangers the life or inflicts great bodily harm; or is calculated as likely to produce death or serious bodily injury. An instrument or instrumentality most innocent appearing and harmless in and of itself may be used in such a dangerous and harmful manner, may be used in such a manner that it causes such serious bodily injury that because of such manner of use . . . you would be warranted in finding that such an instrument or instrumentality was a dangerous weapon within the meaning of the law." The judge left it to the jury to determine whether upon the evidence the lighted cigarettes as used by the defendant were in fact dangerous weapons. The instructions of the judge as to the subject matter were adequate and correct. Although a lighted cigarette is not a dangerous weapon when used for the purposes for which it is intended, it may become such, as the judge instructed the jury, by the manner in which it is used. Commonwealth v. Drew, 4 Mass. 391, 395-396. People v. Goolsby, 284 Mich. 375, 378. [Note p615-1] Lighted cigarettes not being in themselves dangerous weapons, the question whether as used in the present case they were dangerous weapons was one of fact for the jury. Commonwealth v. Drew, 4 Mass. 391, 396. State v. Bloom, 91 Kans. 156, 158. United States v. Small, 2 Curt. C. C. 241, 244. Rex v. Noakes, 5 C. & P. 326, 328.
Bolding and underscoring mine.
The school doesn't want people assaulting each other with zoobows or lit cigarettes,
but the policy authors (lawyers or administrators who have received gen-u-wine legal advice)
lack the common sense to ban assault and battery with a dangerous weapon,
so they ban both per se dangerous weapons
and objects which are only dangerous weapons when used as such.
No one's going to bitch that they can't bring their zoobow on campus.
Cigarettes are just the sort of thing that are trendy to ban for health reasons,
so the SJWs on staff are down with banning them, too.
The rule starts to break down if and when
someone gets tuned up with a frozen leg of mutton,
but no one would trust a modern school not to ban meat "for the children".
Not until someone is throttled with
the suede-reinforced sleeve of a brown corduroy suit jacket
will the faculty senate move to put a stop to the nonsense.
Last edited:
Mesatchornug
NES Member
Not likely, at least not soon.
In fact, not by Bruen which specifically names sensitive places as ok. We'll need another decision to define those places.
