MA SJC rules stun gun ban violates the 2A

terraformer

NES Member
Rating - 100%
32   0   0
Joined
May 17, 2008
Messages
16,938
Likes
2,695
So here is a quick hot take. They go out of their way to apologize for even having to make this ruling. They basically tell the legislature to license them like guns. They also class them as per se deadly and dangerous weapons, so they push them out of their natural place in the use of force continuum and up by deadly force. So if proportional force is required for self-defense, then if you can't pull the trigger, then you can't use a taser. Makes carrying a taser useless for anyone with an LTC, which will be required for anyone who wants one... [banghead]

All of this was to make sure their had the least amount of impact possible. And BTW, for all of the dolts who think Comm2A doesn't do anything or have an impact*, I personally worked with this guy's attorney on the Caetano case (he took both) and he used all of that info in this case. Also, and you can bet the SJC took this criminal case via rocket docket because of Comm2A and CIR's case MA-FDC case in front of Judge Woodlock, who wholeheartedly invalidated another gun reg. They wanted to take a potential decision of his off the board and control the narrative, which is exactly what I am seeing in this decision. Any case Comm2A files in federal court they have polluted by taking a criminal case and using it as a vehicle to alter the playing field in some way.

* and this won't be the last time I mic drop on this point. We have been working on something for years that when it drops, will make every one grin and bounce around like school kids.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Sep 16, 2014
Messages
722
Likes
416
My takeaway from the ruling is the court doesn't actually care about preventing crime, they just want to stack on as many charges as possible when someone does commit a crime. The entire focus seemed to be "more laws more better!"
 

Mesatchornug

Instructor
NES Member
Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Joined
Dec 11, 2011
Messages
7,370
Likes
12,996
Location
People's Republik
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
Just linking across to KDs post in the Martel thread, so folks can watch the statements before the SJC.
 
Rating - 100%
19   0   0
Joined
Jan 19, 2013
Messages
2,549
Likes
960
Just read the court opinion. Keep in mind, I’m no legal wizard, just a guy who has some free time on a Tuesday morning:

It seems well ba able to get tasers and similar items soon. Long overdue. It acknowledges that they are less lethal than firearms, but says they may still be subject to licensure or other kinds of restrictions under Heller. Realistically that’s what was reasonably expected from a MA court at this time. It moves the ball forward at least in one way.

Pardon my failure to fully comprehend the text on my phone, but I’m not sure where it says stun guns constitute lethal force. It specifically says at one time they can be used to coerce a victim like a deadly weapon but I don’t see it extend further than that.

That said, what now? Does that strike 131 down completely? May there be a way for me to get a taser pulse for Christmas?
 
Last edited:

terraformer

NES Member
Rating - 100%
32   0   0
Joined
May 17, 2008
Messages
16,938
Likes
2,695
Pardon my failure to fully comprehend the text on my phone, but I’m not sure where it says stun guns constitute lethal force. It specifically says at one time they can be used to coerce a victim like a deadly weapon but I don’t see it extend further than that.

They specifically called stun guns per-se dangerous and deadly arms. Use of which constitutes "deadly force" as per other decisions. But it was never specifically stated in this decision. They didn't have to once they classed them as per-se dangerous and deadly arms.

That said, my post is cautionary. Lets see what the legislature does.
 
Rating - 100%
24   0   0
Joined
May 13, 2011
Messages
4,360
Likes
2,397
Just read the court opinion. Keep in mind, I’m no legal wizard, just a guy who has some free tOne on a Tuesday morning:

It seems well ba able to get tasers and similar items soon. Long overdue. It acknowledges that they are less lethal than firearms, but says they may still be subject to licensure or other kinds of restrictions under Heller. Realistically that’s what was reasonably expected from a MA court at this time. It moves the ball forward at least in one way.

Pardon my failure to fully comprehend the text on my phone, but I’m not sure where it says stun guns constitute lethal force. It specifically says at one time they can be used to coerce a victim like a deadly weapon but I don’t see it extend further than that.

That said, what now? Does that strike 131 down completely? May there be a way for me to get a taser pulse for Christmas?

131J will be struck down completely when this ruling goes into effect in 60 days ("The entry of that judgment shall be stayed for sixty days after the date of the issuance of the rescript in this case.") That means that if the legislature does nothing, the stun gun ban will be completely gone, and there won't be any restrictions on sale/possession/ownership of stun guns.

Unless and until the Legislature were to act to replace § 131J with a revised version that would pass muster under the Second Amendment, facial invalidation of § 131J would mean that there would be no law in place preventing stun guns from being sold to or possessed by violent felons, persons convicted of domestic violence, convicted drug dealers, children, or the mentally ill.

We therefore come to the conclusion that we cannot save § 131J through partial invalidation and must declare it to be facially invalid.

It seems highly likely that the legislature will act, it's just a matter of exactly what they do. My guess is they will simply make an LTC required to possess/carry electric weapons.
 

Dennis in MA

NES Member
Rating - 100%
25   0   0
Joined
Feb 12, 2007
Messages
31,870
Likes
25,220
My takeaway from the ruling is the court doesn't actually care about preventing crime, they just want to stack on as many charges as possible when someone does commit a crime. The entire focus seemed to be "more laws more better!"

Well we all know that a less-than-stellar citizen will get the gun charges kicked. So all they had left is the Taser charge. Ergo, let's go after the taser charge. (Taser charge. . . . LOL)

I guess under the same logic as this case, it will be hard to TOTALLY ban semi-auto, or even BLACK semi-auto firearms in the state.
 

CLW42

NES Member
Rating - 100%
22   0   0
Joined
Aug 4, 2012
Messages
1,136
Likes
878
They specifically called stun guns per-se dangerous and deadly arms. Use of which constitutes "deadly force" as per other decisions. But it was never specifically stated in this decision. They didn't have to once they classed them as per-se dangerous and deadly arms.

That said, my post is cautionary. Lets see what the legislature does.

Okay, so are they deadly weapons when used by Police now as well? I mean, this does set a precedent.
 

Jbarila

NES Member
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Aug 24, 2010
Messages
1,051
Likes
583
Location
South Shore, Ma
So here is a quick hot take. They go out of their way to apologize for even having to make this ruling. They basically tell the legislature to license them like guns. They also class them as per se deadly and dangerous weapons, so they push them out of their natural place in the use of force continuum and up by deadly force. So if proportional force is required for self-defense, then if you can't pull the trigger, then you can't use a taser. Makes carrying a taser useless for anyone with an LTC, which will be required for anyone who wants one... [banghead]

All of this was to make sure their had the least amount of impact possible. And BTW, for all of the dolts who think Comm2A doesn't do anything or have an impact*, I personally worked with this guy's attorney on the Caetano case (he took both) and he used all of that info in this case. Also, and you can bet the SJC took this criminal case via rocket docket because of Comm2A and CIR's case MA-FDC case in front of Judge Woodlock, who wholeheartedly invalidated another gun reg. They wanted to take a potential decision of his off the board and control the narrative, which is exactly what I am seeing in this decision. Any case Comm2A files in federal court they have polluted by taking a criminal case and using it as a vehicle to alter the playing field in some way.

* and this won't be the last time I mic drop on this point. We have been working on something for years that when it drops, will make every one grin and bounce around like school kids.
Great job as always I donate monthly! Thanks for the hard work!
 
Rating - 100%
26   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2008
Messages
8,283
Likes
5,857
Location
My forest stronghold
The SJC has known this day was coming ever since SCOTUS overturned them in Caetano. And to Terraformer's point, the SJC took the initiative and got out ahead of Comm2A, CIR, and Judge Woodlock who likely would have given us a very positive ruling without all the 'stun guns are sooooo dangerous' drivel that the SJC felt compelled in include in their decision. Still this must have been a very painful decision for them to write and I'm happy for that.

This represents only the second time that I'm aware of when a higher Massachusetts court has actually upheld the Second Amendment, although in this case it's clear their hearts weren't in it. That the SJC took this case and issued this decision are just more evidence that they're actively trying to block us at every turn.
 

Glockster30

NES Member
Rating - 100%
7   0   0
Joined
Jan 13, 2013
Messages
8,714
Likes
4,011
Location
Milky Way
So, this really clarifies everything for me. A stun gun, which wasn't invented when the 2nd Amend was written, IS protected by the 2nd Amend., whereas, an AR15, which evolved from the common musket into one of the most common and popular rifles in the US, ISN'T protected by the 2nd Amend. :confused::confused::confused:
 
Last edited:

CAR

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Mar 31, 2015
Messages
299
Likes
177
Location
Norfolk County, MA
* and this won't be the last time I mic drop on this point. We have been working on something for years that when it drops, will make every one grin and bounce around like school kids.

Are we there yet?
Are we there yet?
Are we there yet?
Are we there yet?
Are we there yet?
:)
 

Rockrivr1

NES Member
Rating - 100%
61   0   0
Joined
Jun 22, 2005
Messages
17,363
Likes
12,125
Location
South Central Mass
And BTW, for all of the dolts who think Comm2A doesn't do anything or have an impact*

* and this won't be the last time I mic drop on this point. We have been working on something for years that when it drops, will make every one grin and bounce around like school kids.

I didn't even click on that thread as I knew it was a hot mess by someone frustrated with the system. The vast majority here know the hard work that both Comm2A and GOAL provides to us gun owners in the state.

Now,do tell, do tell, do tell, do tell,do tell, do tell,do tell, do tell,do tell, do tell,do tell, do tell,do tell, do tell,do tell, do tell,do tell, do tell, do tell, do tell,do tell, do tell,do tell, do tell,do tell, do tell,do tell, do tell,do tell, do tell,do tell, do tell,do tell, do tell, do tell, do tell,do tell, do tell,do tell, do tell,do tell, do tell,do tell, do tell,do tell, do tell,do tell, do tell,do tell, do tell, do tell, do tell,do tell, do tell,do tell, do tell,do tell, do tell,do tell, do tell,do tell, do tell,do tell, do tell!!!!! Impatient inquiring minds want to know!!!!!!!!!
 

CatSnoutSoup

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jul 9, 2015
Messages
6,151
Likes
16,507
Location
Westgardminsterham MA

Garys

NES Member
Rating - 100%
92   0   0
Joined
Oct 19, 2005
Messages
20,364
Likes
5,600
Location
Stoughton
It appears they ruled the way they did because they had no viable alternative. It also raises some questions.

1) Does this force Judge Woodlock to declare the Comm2A case "moot" and dismiss it?

2) If stun guns are per se dangerous and potentially lethal weapons, what might that do to police use of them? After all, if there is no difference between a stun gun and a firearm (which is utter BS), where will stun guns fit on the continuum of force?

3) Obviously, stun guns will only be able to be sold by FFLs in MA. No interstate sales would be my guess. That is, if any FFLs are willing to sell them to non LE people. They might look at the liability potential and decide it's not worth it. I wonder if the federal law protecting firearms manufacturers, distributors, and retailers extends to stun guns?

4) 4473 for stun guns? Hmmm.

The SJC, as was likely their intent gave us a decision in our favor that likely will cause more problems than it solves. Since it doesn't solve any, other than for the particular appellant, it's not a huge win.

None of this takes anything away form the great work that Comm2A has done on this and other issues.

I guess we'll have to sit back and see what the legislature and Tall Deval do with this.
 
Top Bottom