MA SJC rules stun gun ban violates the 2A

This above is awesome link well worth the time: http://www.suffolk.edu/sjc/pop.php?csnum=SJC_12340

The SJC are very inimical and accusatory although they seem to be asking Benjamin H. Keehn to help them develop the ruling!
He seems very nervous but is equipped with data and facts that are strong.
The word you want is adversarial. It's like that by design...
 
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.

But if you can't shock your friends who can you shock? Seems kind of cruel to be shocking random strangers on the street. [laugh][rofl][laugh] And what if your "friend" likes to be shocked.[smile]
 
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).

The "target & sport" restrictions and policies in Boston/Brookline are going to chafe a lot of women applying for these.

Caetano and her attorney should be Rosa Parks style Civil Rights icons in MA. NES fundraiser for a statue?
 
The "target & sport" restrictions and policies in Boston/Brookline are going to chafe a lot of women applying for these.

Caetano and her attorney should be Rosa Parks style Civil Rights icons in MA. NES fundraiser for a statue?
Fundraiser for the attorney !
 
The legislature has the next move and judging by today's reporting DeLeo is already working on other ways to restrict or ban them. The legislature could:
  • Do nothing, in which case they'll be completely legal and regulation free. <== least likely option.
  • Require an LTC or FID to possess a stun gun or Taser.
  • Ban Tasers outright but permit stun guns, licenses or not.
  • Restrict possession to the home
  • Create an entirely new licensing scheme just for EDWs
  • Some combination of the above.
They'll almost certainly give police chiefs discretionary licensing authority. It was the police chiefs after all that were responsible for derailing to legalize stun guns. They'll also put severe commercial restrictions on the sale of stun guns and the like.
 
The legislature has the next move and judging by today's reporting DeLeo is already working on other ways to restrict or ban them. The legislature could:.
  • Restrict possession to the home
Doesn't that run against the actual ruling in Caetano which acknowledged carry outside the home, as Ms. Caetano didn't have a fixed address? I can't help thinking that the state trying to circumvent the SCotUS is eventually going to lead to a D.C. style series of litigation where Comm2A & the SAF drag the Commonwealth kicking and screaming into alignment with the majority of the country in recognizing the 2A & 14A.

I hope the judge in the current Comm2A case offers a stay until the legislature passes their bowel movement so that it may be considered by the court.
 
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 are two possible outcomes to that.

1. Police will be restricted to using TASERs to only the circumstances when they could shoot someone.
2. "Screw the TASER, just shoot him!"
 
Are there any workplaces that ban firearms but would allow stun guns or even pepper spray? Pocket knives? Nail clippers?
Few years ago I read several sets of policies and procedures and employee handbooks from small and midsize businesses in the same industry. They all seemed to be created using cut and paste from the same sources and spelled "no guns allowed" but didn't mention other defensive tools. Considering all the garbage I found there, like reference to CA laws for example, I'm pretty sure neither managers nor workers ever read them. I strongly doubt these documents are going to be rewritten to prohibit stun guns. May not be the case for big companies with their own legal departments.
 
The more relevant equation is not "are stun guns allowed in the workplace?" but rather "will possession of a stun gun bring instant termination?". There is also not the legal risk and danger of leaving a bag or purse with a stun gun inside unattended. I just hope that people don't get a false sense of security from contact mode stun guns that require CQB skills to use them for pain compliance.
 
I love how the judge made a strong case for why the law needs to be struck down immediately, due to legal obligation to do so, then a mealy-mouthed fearmongering routine about some lady who was tortured with a stun gun (among many other things) some time 30+ years ago - as if that's somehow relevant - only to delay 60 days. Insanity.
 
Yes, it's certainly interesting to see the SJC say "This law is unconstitutional, but we're going to leave it in place for 60 days."
 
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).


I shop at that Shaws. Tell me when and I'll be there for the ceremony.
 
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:

My thoughts EXACTLY this morning when I heard this.
 
Interesting that the public committed on Friday (four full days before the decision was published) approved a redrafted bill (S 1283) regarding stun guns. Essentially, they simply remove 131J and change the definition of "firearm" to include stun guns.

That means you must have a license to carry in order to posses one, and the minimum penalty for being caught with one changes. It was possible (and likely) that a judge could simply impose a $500 fine. Now the judge MUST sentence you to 18 months.

Bill S.1283
Section 1. Section 131J of Chapter 140 of the General Laws is hereby repealed.

Section 2. Section 121 of Chapter 140 of the General Laws, as appearing in the 2014 Edition of the General Laws, is hereby amended by amending the definition of the word “firearm” in line 47 by adding the following language after the word “manufactured”:-

“,or 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”.
 
Interesting that the public committed on Friday (four full days before the decision was published) approved a redrafted bill (S 1283) regarding stun guns. Essentially, they simply remove 131J and change the definition of "firearm" to include stun guns.

That means you must have a license to carry in order to posses one, and the minimum penalty for being caught with one changes. It was possible (and likely) that a judge could simply impose a $500 fine. Now the judge MUST sentence you to 18 months.

Wait so that would mean that the legislature had insider knowledge of a supreme court decision before it was given to the public? How does that work?
 
Interesting that the public committed on Friday (four full days before the decision was published) approved a redrafted bill (S 1283) regarding stun guns. Essentially, they simply remove 131J and change the definition of "firearm" to include stun guns.

That means you must have a license to carry in order to posses one, and the minimum penalty for being caught with one changes. It was possible (and likely) that a judge could simply impose a $500 fine. Now the judge MUST sentence you to 18 months.

Wait so that would mean that the legislature had insider knowledge of a supreme court decision before it was given to the public? How does that work?


S.1283 has been around since last January - I am not certain about revision history on S. bills, but the Internet Wayback Machine has one snapshot (10/21/17) that looks like this has been in the works for a while. Bill S.1283
Most likely this has been rattling around the statehouse since the "Caetano I" SCOTUS slapdown.
 
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.
Don't forget my working with Keehne on Caetano, which he used here.
 
Interesting that the public committed on Friday (four full days before the decision was published) approved a redrafted bill (S 1283) regarding stun guns. Essentially, they simply remove 131J and change the definition of "firearm" to include stun guns.

That means you must have a license to carry in order to posses one, and the minimum penalty for being caught with one changes. It was possible (and likely) that a judge could simply impose a $500 fine. Now the judge MUST sentence you to 18 months.

Well, that's only if you're a law abiding citizen. Scumbag career criminals get a free pass on (stun)gun charges.
 
This above is awesome link well worth the time: http://www.suffolk.edu/sjc/pop.php?csnum=SJC_12340

The SJC are very inimical and accusatory although they seem to be asking Benjamin H. Keehn to help them develop the ruling!
He seems very nervous but is equipped with data and facts that are strong.

I liked how Keehne @ ~11:20 mentioned how the job of the SJC is not to find a workaround to Heller, but to use it as a framework. Very powerful observation, which they clearly overlook.

The ADA for the State didn’t seem too prepared, had that annoying upward inflection at the end of each sentence that made every sentence sound like a question, and had a crappy argument towards the end. It’s as if she completely forgot that Caetano WAS homeless when she started talking about how stun guns would only be acceptable “in the home” if they were to be acceptable at all. Keehne can be seen rolling his eyes when she uttered this idiocy.
 
The more relevant equation is not "are stun guns allowed in the workplace?" but rather "will possession of a stun gun bring instant termination?". There is also not the legal risk and danger of leaving a bag or purse with a stun gun inside unattended. I just hope that people don't get a false sense of security from contact mode stun guns that require CQB skills to use them for pain compliance.

Since an employer in MA can terminate for any reason, they still will be able to do so. Also, the AG or legislature could create the same "under your control" and storage laws for them as with firearms.

Stay tuned, I'm sure that they are about to screw us on this.
 
Since an employer in MA can terminate for any reason, they still will be able to do so. Also, the AG or legislature could create the same "under your control" and storage laws for them as with firearms.

Stay tuned, I'm sure that they are about to screw us on this.


It's what they do. The screwing will be hard, fast, and deep, probably coupled with some stupid shit to close the "gun show loophole" (gasp, omg!) and tossed into some totally unrelated bill about legalizing bestiality co-sponsored by Linstain and Creem.

Guarantee someone was watching VT conduct their raping of gun owners and going: "Dammit, I wish we had thought of that!"
 
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.
Wonder how this will impact police use of them. Excessive force suits galore?
 
Wonder how this will impact police use of them. Excessive force suits galore?

It would make sense if it was reclassified as a deadly weapon.
They are running out of room to cram bullshit laws in the bag and sooner or later they will trip on their own dicks in the rush.
 
Chelsea Police Chief Brian Kyes, president of the Massachusetts Major Cities Chiefs of Police Association, said his group was not surprised by the SJC ruling and had previously discussed alternatives to a total ban. He said he'd favor adding stun guns to the list of firearms, including handguns, for which residents must obtain a license to carry from their local police chiefs.

How the F&^k do you qualify a stun gun as a firearm?! Oh, I know, it has the word "gun" in it's name. :confused:
 
I’m waiting for them to pull this shit with knives. Hey, of England can do it, sure New England wouldn’t be too far off. Such BS.
 
Back
Top Bottom