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

[terraformer]

I read it as "grudgingly per curium" in that there was at least one justice who didn't want to agree but had no way to squirm out of it. Or maybe some that didn't want to remand. Maybe it was a compromise between the two.

Grudgingly means that they couldn't take the case because there was no new ground to trod on it. The SJC decision was so bad and so precluded by existing precedent, the courts time would be wasted. In other terms, there was 5+ votes to overturn the decision on those grounds alone.

 

[earthshine402]

I'd love to see the mental gymnastics it takes to say a non-lethal weapon is dangerous but a lethal one is not.

I was actually wondering something more along the lines of "we now deem firearm type X too dangerous as well as magazine type Y"- how long is it until this thinking is pushed and might essentially water down Heller?

 

[dingbat]

The Alito and Thomas opinion is amazing. How the Mass AWB, NY's "safe act", or even the 1986 full-auto ban could survive their view is hard to see. If a few hundred thousand stun guns in lawful hands is all it takes to make a ban unacceptable, then how in the world can any ban of substance stand up? I know this is not how it works, but this is just so very very wonderful it is hard not to extrapolate.

Makes you wonder what their NES screen names are, doesn't it?

 

[jasons]

Makes you wonder what their NES screen names are, doesn't it?

They wouldn't last long around here.

 

[spt_1955]

Goosebumps... I'm glad my monthly donation, however humble, is going toward successes like this.
Alito quoting "A Revolution in Arms" and "Firarms: An Illustrated History" pleases me more than it should, but still.

dig in guys and send something to COMM2A. I JUST DID!!! Another great job done by this organization to protect our rights.

 

[rep308]

Newspaper reporting on the case

Bad: Boston Herald Editorial - Don't tase us bro
http://www.bostonherald.com/opinion/editorials/2016/03/editorial_don_t_tase_us_bro

So the often divided justices of the U.S. Supreme Court finally found something they could agree on (even absent Justice Antonin Scalia) — and it’s to allow folks here in Massachusetts to carry stun guns. Isn’t that just swell.....The SJC won’t be able to “fix” this. It will remain for the Legislature to do that — to make sure so-called “nonlethal” weapons (and we learned the true meaning of that in the 2004 death of 21-year-old Victoria Snelgrove at the hands of Boston Police) are indeed subject to licensing and don’t become as ubiquitous as Super-Soakers this summer.

Very Good: Wall Street Journal - The Supreme Court’s Eight Gun Salute http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-supreme-courts-eight-gun-salute-1458602413

The Supreme Court decides many cases unanimously, but not often regarding the Second Amendment. That rare occasion happened Monday when the eight sitting Justices threw out a Massachusetts ruling that the right of individuals to bear arms doesn’t include stun guns.......The timing of Monday’s ruling is notable because Heller and the individual right to bear arms will be major progressive targets if there is a new left-leaning majority on the Supreme Court. Progressives will at the very least try to blow major holes into Heller by narrowing its limits on gun regulation. But for now the ruling is a reminder that Heller is a landmark that needs to be enforced, not resisted.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

I guess the remaining question is "Will Cateano get her stun gun back?"

 

[browncoat]

I guess the remaining question is "Will Cateano get her stun gun back?"

Can't they keep holding it as evidence indefinitely?

 

[browncoat]

Bad: Boston Herald Editorial - Don't tase us bro
http://www.bostonherald.com/opinion/editorials/2016/03/editorial_don_t_tase_us_bro

So the often divided justices of the U.S. Supreme Court finally found something they could agree on (even absent Justice Antonin Scalia) — and it’s to allow folks here in Massachusetts to carry stun guns. Isn’t that just swell.....The SJC won’t be able to “fix” this. It will remain for the Legislature to do that — to make sure so-called “nonlethal” weapons (and we learned the true meaning of that in the 2004 death of 21-year-old Victoria Snelgrove at the hands of Boston Police) are indeed subject to licensing and don’t become as ubiquitous as Super-Soakers this summer.

Very Good: Wall Street Journal - The Supreme Court’s Eight Gun Salute http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-supreme-courts-eight-gun-salute-1458602413

The Supreme Court decides many cases unanimously, but not often regarding the Second Amendment. That rare occasion happened Monday when the eight sitting Justices threw out a Massachusetts ruling that the right of individuals to bear arms doesn’t include stun guns.......The timing of Monday’s ruling is notable because Heller and the individual right to bear arms will be major progressive targets if there is a new left-leaning majority on the Supreme Court. Progressives will at the very least try to blow major holes into Heller by narrowing its limits on gun regulation. But for now the ruling is a reminder that Heller is a landmark that needs to be enforced, not resisted.

Wow, the Boston Herald sure was quick with that terrible (and unsurprisingly biased) piece. It sickens me that the actions of the police are being held against the rest of us. BPD still carries tazers.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Can't they keep holding it as evidence indefinitely?

Only while there is possible appeal of the case.

A friend couldn't get his 1911 back from the NYPD until the defendant got killed while out on bale. The prosecutor explained the evidence was kept until the case was over and there was no possibility of an appeal.

But, they may just keep it because this is MA. Or maybe send it to a bonded warehouse on general principals

---------------------------------

DANGER WILL ROBINSON


It is a virtual certainty that the general court will modify the law to require either an FID or LTC to possess/carry a stun gun. This means the "hood will be open" on gun laws (a subject usually left untouched by the legislature). This is both a risk (as we have troublemakers like Linsky running around) and opportunity for GOAL to get something good slipped in.

 

[bigblue]

Bad: Boston Herald Editorial - Don't tase us bro
http://www.bostonherald.com/opinion/editorials/2016/03/editorial_don_t_tase_us_bro

So the often divided justices of the U.S. Supreme Court finally found something they could agree on (even absent Justice Antonin Scalia) — and it’s to allow folks here in Massachusetts to carry stun guns. Isn’t that just swell.....The SJC won’t be able to “fix” this. It will remain for the Legislature to do that — to make sure so-called “nonlethal” weapons (and we learned the true meaning of that in the 2004 death of 21-year-old Victoria Snelgrove at the hands of Boston Police) are indeed subject to licensing and don’t become as ubiquitous as Super-Soakers this summer.

There is so much ignorance, fear, and stupidity written there that it hurts to read. How do people like this ever leave the house for fear of the world?

Is there any way that you could paste the test of the WSJ article since I'm not going to subscribe to read a single article?

 

[browncoat]

I'd love to see the mental gymnastics it takes to say a non-lethal weapon is dangerous but a lethal one is not.

Have you seen the list of dangerous weapons in the MA statute? It includes quite a few less-lethal devices.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

There is so much ignorance, fear, and stupidity written there that it hurts to read. How do people like this ever leave the house for fear of the world?

It is very common for weapons to be marketed as "less lethal" rather than "non-lethal". There is a difference.

 

[bigblue]

It is very common for weapons to be marketed as "less lethal" rather than "non-lethal". There is a difference.

That differentiation has little to do with the fear presented by this person since they are not making the distinction. This is simply "omg stun guns will be everywhere" fear.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

That differentiation has little to do with the fear presented by this person since they are not making the distinction. This is simply "omg stun guns will be everywhere" fear.

Like SCOTUS said, more concerned with keeping the people disarmed than keeping them safe.

 

[rivet_42]

People are worried about an outright near-term reversal of Heller, the way SCOTUS reversed Bowers v. Hardwick (upholding state sodomy laws in 1986) with Lawrence v. Texas less than 20 years later, in 2003.

If SCOTUS ends up swinging more liberal, as a result of an appointment by Obama or a (D) successor, I doubt you'll see an outright reversal of Heller, but you will see the Court countenancing more laws that chip away at 2A around the edges and make it a right that's more difficult to exercise. Especially at the state and local level, in the usual crop of "anti-" states. You also won't see major decisions invalidating things like state-level AWBs, onerous license-to-own systems, or expanding the right to carry.

At risk of I think it's entirely appropriate to draw an analogy to Roe v. Wade.

Heller is to gun rights what Roe v. Wade was to abortion. Both are controversial decisions that firmly establish rights in a particular area, and that have provided a lightning rod for opponents of those respective rights, who think the decision is founded on questionable legal theories and constitutes "legislating from the bench". It's theorized by many that Roe kickstarted political activism among evangelical Christians. My own ex-recto theory is that the Left's current focus on gun control as their next big social issue, is a result of Heller and McDonald.

It's been 42 years since Roe. The court has swung conservative since the mid 1980s--about 30 of those 40 years--but we've seen no signs of a reversal of Roe. What we have seen is an increase in the number of restrictions around abortion that have made it harder to get one. Bans on late-term abortions. Waiting periods. Requirements for invasive ultrasounds. Requirements that doctors have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital. All sorts of laws chipping away at the right to an abortion around the margins, such that in a few states it's become a right that's impossible for many, especially the impoverished, to exercise. (E.g. you need to spend the better part of a day traveling to a big city that may be hundreds of miles away and spend the night in a motel room waiting out a waiting period, then have the procedure, then travel home. All while losing 2-3 days' pay.)

Similarly, the antis are going to spend the next half-century trying to chip away at Heller around the edges.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

I doubt you'll see an outright reversal of Heller, but you will see the Court countenancing more laws that chip away at 2A around the edges and make it a right that's more difficult to exercise.

We already have that. It is a right more difficult to exercise than any of the other 9, and is the only one for which a state may require the purchase of a license.

The court has denied cert to a local AW ban, thus removing those guns from Heller protection.

It has also denied cert to the NY case challenging the prohibitive pistol licensing fees in NYC (but would certainly take up a case of a city charging a fee for a license to vote or publish an editorial)

It is unlikely the court will grant cert to any case challenging NJ style "carry permit for me but not for thee" laws.

It has not explicitly stated that restrictions on the 2A shall be subject to strict scrutiny.

In short, as Scalia noted, the 2A remains a second class right.

 

[swordsman]

Great news, especially after being relisted again and again and again, pretty much thought it'd turn out like the Highland Park AWB case that also got multiple relists. Now just to see how the MA SJC reacts to getting smacked down hard.

 

[rep308]

Is there any way that you could paste the test of the WSJ article since I'm not going to subscribe to read a single article?

I have one old infraction as a reminder on why I can't paste the article. I'd suggest investing $2.50 and picking up a news stand copy today or dropping by your library and read their copy.

 

[jtnf]

Great news, especially after being relisted again and again and again, pretty much thought it'd turn out like the Highland Park AWB case that also got multiple relists. Now just to see how the MA SJC reacts to getting smacked down hard.

I'm more interested in seeing how the Great and General Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts reacts to their lapdogs in the Supreme Judicial Court getting whacked on the nose with a rolled up newspaper.

 

[browncoat]

I'm more interested in seeing how the Great and General Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts reacts to their lapdogs in the Supreme Judicial Court getting whacked on the nose with a rolled up newspaper.

I'm betting that they'll put either an FID or LTC requirement on possession, and limit sales to licensed dealers.

 

[Goliathan]

I'm betting that they'll put either an FID or LTC requirement on possession, and limit sales to licensed dealers.

Probably. And although I would of that as a crap maneuver, a potential upside is another increase in LTC applications.

 

[TayNinh_66]

I'm betting that they'll put either an FID or LTC requirement on possession, and limit sales to licensed dealers.

At some point existing MGL C140 S131J is going to be history. The writing is on the wall for SJC purposes.
Doesn't the question become what will the legislature replace it with? And doesn't it then fall into the realm of GOAL to advocate?
Legislature has several options:

1) Just delete the section and follow the rest of the US (but hey, this is MA)
2) Follow the Indiana model. Restrict to 18 yrs of age and 5mA or less
3) Follow the Wisconsin model. Require an LTC

1) is preferable but this is MA so 2) becomes likely. Most portables devices are 3.5mA so restricting to 5mA seems reasonable.
20mA gets into dangerous realm and 100mA will disrupt heart elec activity and can be fatal.
So isn't it in our best interest to be proactive and get started now and write a new S131J and get some legislators on board?

(Personally I have no use for a contact weapon that may or may not stop someone. I'd go with pepper spray gel that has a 15' range that will definitely slow someone down)

 

[Rob Boudrie]

So isn't it in our best interest to be proactive and get started now and write a new S131J and get some legislators on board?

From what I hear, GOAL is already doing their thing.

If necessary, we at Comm2A will do our thing (file another suit)

There is a consumer grade taser (by the real TASER company) that fits in a pocket and works by projecting the wires with a charge. They treat their customers like suspects - the unit is disabled until you provide info to an identity service (at an extra charge) to register your name in association with the ID confetti spit out when the unit is fired.

 

[alohadoug]

From what I hear, GOAL is already doing their thing.

If necessary, we at Comm2A will do our thing (file another suit)

There is a consumer grade taser (by the real TASER company) that fits in a pocket and works by projecting the wires with a charge. They treat their customers like suspects - the unit is disabled until you provide info to an identity service (at an extra charge) to register your name in association with the ID confetti spit out when the unit is fired.

Rob - Taser has a new civilian version that doesn't have the ID confetti option.

Aloha

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Rob - Taser has a new civilian version that doesn't have the ID confetti option.

Aloha

What model is that? The C2?

Has Taser abandoned the big brother approach, and decided to let the user decide if they are going to file a police report? Also, what obstacles has Taser put in place to prevent people from buying the police or the agricultural unit (the red one that will make a bull look like a fainting goat) for home defense?

 

[AHM]

Articles by Volokh Conspirators and other lawbloggers

1. 21-Mar'16: Jonathan H. Adler: Supreme Court zaps Massachusetts stun-gun opinion
2. 22-Mar'16: Eugene Volokh: Unanimous pro-Second-Amendment stun gun decision from the Supreme Court

Note that the Conspirators do express opinions on SCOTUS' motivation, how the SJC would be smart to behave, and what they think SCOTUS will do if the SJC fails to take the hint and this gets appealed back up to them. Any NESer feeling expressive might get some interesting reactions from VC readers if they share some of the Masskeptical theories from this thread as a reply to one of those articles. VC readers might gain a new appreciation for conditions in our little 3rd world hellhole, and some might offer their own perspectives on the theories.

I'm still waiting to see Dave Kopel write something, somewhere. (So far he's written nothing on VC and nothing on his own site).

However, Kopel's colleague David Hardy did write Supreme Court speaks out (a bit) on 2A on Of Arms and the Law. Maybe that was linked earlier in this thread; I'm not sure.


Similarly, Legal Insurrectionist Sarah Rumpf wrote: Supreme Court: 2nd Amendment applies to Stun Guns, but I see nothing there from chief Insurrectionist William A. Jacobson nor NES expert Andrew "Law of Self Defense" Branca.

And Instapundit Glenn Reynolds only wrote a terse 3-liner on 21-Mar'16 (although he does cite a 12 page law review article of his from 4-Nov'15, which ain't too shabby).

There are also two Lyle Denniston articles in separate blogs:

1. 21-Mar'16: SCOTUSblog: The Second Amendment expands, but maybe not by much
2. 22-Mar'16: Constitution Daily: Constitution Check: Where does the Second Amendment stand now?

Again, apologies if these have been linked previously in this thread.

 

[ochmude]

What model is that? The C2?

Has Taser abandoned the big brother approach, and decided to let the user decide if they are going to file a police report? Also, what obstacles has Taser put in place to prevent people from buying the police or the agricultural unit (the red one that will make a bull look like a fainting goat) for home defense?

Not sure about the agricultural unit, but the LE taser cartridges have the ID confetti as well.

 

[Point37]

What model is that? The C2?

Has Taser abandoned the big brother approach, and decided to let the user decide if they are going to file a police report? Also, what obstacles has Taser put in place to prevent people from buying the police or the agricultural unit (the red one that will make a bull look like a fainting goat) for home defense?

if the animal taser was a little cheaper (~$2k tag on it i think)...what storage and transportation laws do you think would be put in place with tasers if they were to be made legal?...i don't see them really taking off unless you don't have to keep it locked up which i doubt will ever happen in this state...would be a quick go to if you didn't have a lot of time to get to your safe at your home...could put them all over the house...would a cattle prod be effective or are those regulated as well?...wouldn't be a bad thing to hide around the house...like going to a bear pepper spray over a human pepper spray just for the fog distance...yea it may get you in trouble in court but so will shooting someone...if it buys time and doesn't have to be locked up then i'm all for it...better than the tball bats i have hidden

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Not sure about the agricultural unit, but the LE taser cartridges have the ID confetti as well.

I was not referring to the ID confetti, but to the Taser policy (not sure if it is current) of making buyers go to a paid online service that asks questions like "which of the following places have you held a mortgage", "what color was your first car", etc. to confirm your identity; registers your name to the Taser you bought; and then issues you a software code to enable your device.