MA SJC rules stun gun ban violates the 2A

There is not a CH worth of difference between Baker and Deval other than height and skin color. He's like Michael Bloomberg in that he ran as a Republican because he knew he'd never get nominated as a Democrat.

I'll write in my friend's dog's name for governor in November.

Here is exclusive video of the Governor in a meeting,



One might look at it as Gov. Charlie Baker actively trying to block us at every turn.

June 14, 2016
Gov. Baker Nominates Three to Supreme Judicial Court

February 8, 2017
Gov. Baker Nominates Justice Elspeth Cypher to Supreme Judicial Court

June 26, 2017
Governor Baker Nominates Kafker to Supreme Judicial Court

:mad:
 
Ding
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:
Ding, ding,ding !
This will come back on these judges !
 
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.

Stun guns aren't firearms, so none of the Federal laws regarding firearms apply to them. That means no 4473 for stun guns, since the 4473 is a Federal form used for firearm sales/transfers.

MA can regulate sales of stun guns within MA all they want, but I'm pretty sure there's nothing they can do to stop MA residents from buying stun guns in other states. Since they're not firearms, the Federal laws about buying firearms out-of-state do not apply. I mean, I could go up to NH and buy a stun gun right now. I would only be committing a crime if I brought it back into MA (at least for the next 60 days).
 
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.


So does this mean that a cop who pulls a taser and deploys it is subject to the same level of legal scrutiny meaning it's a deadly force decision?
 
There is not a CH worth of difference between Baker and Deval other than height and skin color. He's like Michael Bloomberg in that he ran as a Republican because he knew he'd never get nominated as a Democrat.

I'll write in my friend's dog's name for governor in November.

Meathead Baker IS a DemonRat.
Would not vote for the Republican candidate for POTUS. Would not even meet with Veep Pence when he was in town the other week.

He's an absolute disgrace and should be expelled from the Republican Party. Let him run as an independent.

DeValue never pulled the crap he did. I suspect he moderated some of the extremism to avoid controversy on his watch. With RINO Baker, the wolves are running lose.
 
So does this mean that a cop who pulls a taser and deploys it is subject to the same level of legal scrutiny meaning it's a deadly force decision?
It would be the logical conclusion of the classification decision, but if they (the courts) decide to, they can put us under two sets of rules. It's too soon to know. My goal is to make sure people know that when they get their new shiny taser, treat it like a firearm for all intent and purpose from storage to decisions about it's use. And I don't mean don't shock your friends. That should be a given.
 
It appears they ruled the way they did because they had no viable alternative. It also raises some questions.

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?

Oh, just WAIT for the first severely-injured or severely-dead taser victim to sue a town/city in MA. It'll be awful pretty for the taxpayers of that locale.

Ding

Ding, ding,ding !
This will come back on these judges !

Yes it will. They may not like it, but they're going to have a hard time banning anything by fiat or law. They set their own precedent.
 
Oh, just WAIT for the first severely-injured or severely-dead taser victim to sue a town/city in MA. It'll be awful pretty for the taxpayers of that locale.



Yes it will. They may not like it, but they're going to have a hard time banning anything by fiat or law. They set their own precedent.

Yes, but as long as the cop gets home safely all is well, right?
 
Meathead Baker IS a DemonRat.
Would not vote for the Republican candidate for POTUS. Would not even meet with Veep Pence when he was in town the other week.

He's an absolute disgrace and should be expelled from the Republican Party. Let him run as an independent.

DeValue never pulled the crap he did. I suspect he moderated some of the extremism to avoid controversy on his watch. With RINO Baker, the wolves are running lose.


You missed the biggest smoking gun with baker as a democrat and it is not the fact that hat he didn’t vote republican, it is that he actually was a close advisor to Hillary. He was a confidant and worked on her campaign. He gets his own chapter I believe in one of the why Hillary lost books.

Also this ruling is a shocking turn of events...pun intended.
 
* 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 have to keep myself from speculating so I don't get disappointing but I am on the edge of my seat.

excited1.gif


The only logical conclusion would be for everyone to make sure they donate in order to ensure that your work on it gets to come to fruition.

tumblr_mvhtgfpMUZ1stovino1_1280.gif


Never understood the people who demand proof of results before they will part with their $25 donation. For all you guys go through and do, thank you, because I doubt that there is any amount of money that would make you work any harder than just being motivated by protecting and restoring one of our core and essential rights.
 
As long as you pay cash and don't tell them you're from MA, you should be fine. :rolleyes:

Stun guns aren't firearms, so none of the Federal laws regarding firearms apply to them. That means no 4473 for stun guns, since the 4473 is a Federal form used for firearm sales/transfers.

MA can regulate sales of stun guns within MA all they want, but I'm pretty sure there's nothing they can do to stop MA residents from buying stun guns in other states. Since they're not firearms, the Federal laws about buying firearms out-of-state do not apply. I mean, I could go up to NH and buy a stun gun right now. I would only be committing a crime if I brought it back into MA (at least for the next 60 days).
 
There have already been numerous lawsuits for "taser deaths" across the country. I don't know how many have been successfully defended, lost by the PD, or settled without details being released. I know that the manufacturers have also been sued, again, I haven't followed the results. It's a lot like the "deaths from OC spray" lawsuits when that first came out.
Notice that no PDs in other states have given up Tasers or OC spray.

Oh, just WAIT for the first severely-injured or severely-dead taser victim to sue a town/city in MA. It'll be awful pretty for the taxpayers of that locale.
 
There have already been numerous lawsuits for "taser deaths" across the country. I don't know how many have been successfully defended, lost by the PD, or settled without details being released. I know that the manufacturers have also been sued, again, I haven't followed the results. It's a lot like the "deaths from OC spray" lawsuits when that first came out.
Notice that no PDs in other states have given up Tasers or OC spray.
It's called "excited delirium." Axon is happy to provide information and support to PDs, think they'll do the same for the unwashed?
 
Great work Comm2A
I wish would could take more credit for this, but we can't. I think our amicus work in Caetano helped to lay the foundation for this case. We're happy about that. For better or worse, our federal challenge (Martel v. Healey) clearly motivated the SJC to get out ahead of what would have likely been a much better ruling. So I guess Comm2A can take credit for keeping the pressure on.

This is clearly not the end of it. The state's politicians are clearly apoplectic over this and I wouldn't be surprised if they received a heads up prior to the release of today's decision. There's already talk about how the legislature might 'fix' this.
 
Yeah, the fix will be something. All stun guns must past safety test and get on the EOPS list, then the Maura Healey ten pound trigger and safety light to show when it's charged up. Who know what other evil lurks out there in what they can dream up.
 
I'm pretty sure AR15s are in more common use compared to stun guns.
Yes. I think that the AG's lawyers even made that very argument in this case if I remember correctly. Which flies in the face of the last two decisions that were made.
 
I wonder if we will ever see sales here?

I would assume the easiest “fix” would be to make stun guns have to pass a made up consumer protection criteria that doesn’t exist in the industry and that the police do not use.
 
I wonder if we will ever see sales here?

I would assume the easiest “fix” would be to make stun guns have to pass a made up consumer protection criteria that doesn’t exist in the industry and that the police do not use.

Id have to go read the laws again, but if the tazer specific laws and verbage were removed, it may then be classified as "AOW" or "Any Other Weapon" IF so, they will need to be on the EOPS list. Just like what they pulled with SBRs ....
 
I wonder if we will ever see sales here?

I would assume the easiest “fix” would be to make stun guns have to pass a made up consumer protection criteria that doesn’t exist in the industry and that the police do not use.

Only if the state does that and loses in court bye bye MA approved roster and AGs super secret list ‘banning’ Glocks. Does the legislature or AG want to gamble on it? Especially against a SCOTUS ruling? The states’ f***ery could easily paint them into a corner or bring their whole rotten house down. DC and Chicago learned that the hard way.
 
If the state requires LTCs for Tasers and generic stun guns, it is going to result in moving the needle bit on the number of handgun licenses.

I am thinking that we need to mount a plaque in the Shaws Ashland parking lot when nobody is looking (perhaps a brass plaque mounted to the base of a light pole).
 
Back
Top Bottom