MA SJC rules stun gun ban violates the 2A

[CAR]

And here's how they're going to approach it - Tasers require an LTC, contact devices require a FID.

Stun Gun Ban Revisited – Will Brownsberger

[Correction! I got the poll because I had previously subscribed to his newsletter! Still, the comments are entertaining]

Because I commented on his page, I received an email poll (below, personalized tracking links removed). If you do comment on his page, try not to make the Pro-2A side look like buffoons, the anti-2A side is doing a pretty good job of that so far with comments like "The legislature needs to find a way to overturn this Supreme Court decision" and "Scalia only wrote Heller the way he did because he believed in life after death" (both slightly paraphrased but not that far off).

As a result of court decisions striking down our ban on stun guns, stun guns will be unregulated in Massachusetts unless the legislature acts to create a licensing scheme.

Stun guns include batons that shock people when you poke them. They also include tasers which shoot darts which shock people.

Please click the statement that best summarizes your views:

I feel that stun guns should be available to adults without any background checking or licensing.

I feel that there should be some degree of background checking and required licensing for stun guns.

You'll have the opportunity to elaborate your views by commenting at the link you get to by responding. If you feel that neither option is close to your views, you can go directly to comment here.

Will Brownsberger
State Senator -- 2d Suffolk and Middlesex District
Back Bay, Fenway, Brighton, Allston, Watertown, Belmont​

 

[42!]

The issuing authority must first ask a judge for a rubber stamp ruling to deny an FID.

Yes but the standard is the same. Risk to public safety is what appears in the law, CoPs and Judges still use "broad discretion". And of course you are assumed to be unsuitable. To top it off the "hearing" is not a trial with the normal standards of evidence and the ability to present and question witnesses. It's an administrative hearing where hearsay is allowed and whatever the CoP says is taken as 100% accurate and truthful, and you do not have the opportunity to question the validity of the information or the sources of what is being said. Like Rob said, the judge is just rubber stamping it.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Yes but the standard is the same. Risk to public safety is what appears in the law, CoPs and Judges still use "broad discretion"

The courts have universally declined to use the new standard in the law and are still treating Moyer as a valid precedent. Part of the reason is someone (no idea who, that info has been hidden) pulled the phrase "de novo" out of the bill at the last minute.

So, the courts continue to answer the question "Did this chief think he had a valid reason? If yes, the appeal is denied" at licensing appeal hearings.

 

[42!]

The courts have universally declined to use the new standard in the law and are still treating Moyer as a valid precedent. Part of the reason is someone (no idea who, that info has been hidden) pulled the phrase "de novo" out of the bill at the last minute.

So, the courts continue to answer the question "Did this chief think he had a valid reason? If yes, the appeal is denied" at licensing appeal hearings.

Just curious, if at an appeal the new standard was specifically cited but the judge ruled based on, and specifically citing, "broad discretion", could that form some kind of basis for a fed case that the court is ignoring the clear and specific definition placed into the law specifically to to clarify the situation. This might help move the focus away from the "reason" and toward the intent of the law. Because let's face it, any "reason" given by the CoP, when there is no requirement to back it up with facts, isn't going to sound good.

 

[Coyote33]

1.
Massachusetts court strikes down ban on stun guns

2.
Editorial: State must rewrite flawed stun-gun law

 

[VetteGirlMA]

1.
Massachusetts court strikes down ban on stun guns

2.
Editorial: State must rewrite flawed stun-gun law

3.
Massachusetts legislators cobble together new laws with only minutes remaining. New laws have vague language on licensing criteria state stun gun manufacturers association. New laws defining criminal penalties for using them with stun gun owners required to run away and climb the nearest tree before being able to use one.

^--- That's how it well end. I didn't want to do this spoiler, but that's about it.

 

[inkdesigner]

So, if they require an LTC to have a TASER and one only has a restricted LTC, will that mean they will not be able to carry the TASER on themselves when they are out of the house? What about a homeless person? Since homeless, by definition, means no home or primary address, where do they go to obtain an LTC? Does the Legislature feel homeless folks are not in need of self-defense?

Anything short of full repeal of the stun gun law, with NO replacement, is a travesty. Why can't they just allow TASERs and stun guns like they do mace and pepper spray?

 

[amm5061]

So, if they require an LTC to have a TASER and one only has a restricted LTC, will that mean they will not be able to carry the TASER on themselves when they are out of the house? What about a homeless person? Since homeless, by definition, means no home or primary address, where do they go to obtain an LTC? Does the Legislature feel homeless folks are not in need of self-defense?

Anything short of full repeal of the stun gun law, with NO replacement, is a travesty. Why can't they just allow TASERs and stun guns like they do mace and pepper spray?

Oh yeah.... Restrictions are gonna be how they keep stun guns out of the hands of the masses. Anyone who applies for an LTC so they can carry a taser will automatically be restricted. Honestly, I'm still shocked they finally allowed pepper spray to be purchased and carried without an LTC.

 

[Palladin]

[Correction! I got the poll because I had previously subscribed to his newsletter! Still, the comments are entertaining]

Because I commented on his page, I received an email poll (below, personalized tracking links removed). If you do comment on his page, try not to make the Pro-2A side look like buffoons, the anti-2A side is doing a pretty good job of that so far with comments like "The legislature needs to find a way to overturn this Supreme Court decision" and "Scalia only wrote Heller the way he did because he believed in life after death" (both slightly paraphrased but not that far off).

As a result of court decisions striking down our ban on stun guns, stun guns will be unregulated in Massachusetts unless the legislature acts to create a licensing scheme.

Stun guns include batons that shock people when you poke them. They also include tasers which shoot darts which shock people.

Please click the statement that best summarizes your views:

I feel that stun guns should be available to adults without any background checking or licensing.

I feel that there should be some degree of background checking and required licensing for stun guns.

You'll have the opportunity to elaborate your views by commenting at the link you get to by responding. If you feel that neither option is close to your views, you can go directly to comment here.

Will Brownsberger
State Senator -- 2d Suffolk and Middlesex District
Back Bay, Fenway, Brighton, Allston, Watertown, Belmont​

of course 89% want licensing, he sent the email to his supporters, they're all liberal Democrats !!

 

[robjax]

the AR15 ban violates 2A more...

 

[Horrible]

the AR15 ban violates 2A more...

ARs are far more commonly used than stun guns per Heller's standard.

 

[Pete85]

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.

IIRC, there's one Massachusetts city (Worcester, I think) that already does prohibit the carrying of knives unless you have your LTC.

 

[NewGuyRay]

This sounds horribly confusing. If I have an FID, I can carry a "contact" stun gun. On an LTC with no restrictions, I can carry a "contact" or "projectile stun gun". However, on a restricted LTC, I can carry what? Seems to me, if I am to be limited to carrying a "contact" stun gun on a restricted LTC, shouldn't I simply resort to using a drop holster with my hammer in it? Not only will I be able to fix any loose nails that may present a danger to the public, I can use it in far more self-defense scenarios than the stun gun given that the SJC has declared my hammer to be less dangerous than a stun gun.

 

[Dadstoys]

Not that I need one , but the second I can buy one , I will.
Cause f*ck you , that's why .

 

[Rob Boudrie]

However, on a restricted LTC, I can carry what?

It depends on what the restriction is. It will be interesting to see if the Brookline PD allows Taser carry for the little people.

 

[connor]

IIRC, there's one Massachusetts city (Worcester, I think) that already does prohibit the carrying of knives unless you have your LTC.

hahahahahahahahhahaha

Oops.

I recon I'm due for about 1200 dollars in fines if I ever get pulled over here.
And that's before they open my tool boxes.

 

[oldguy68]

I guess they think lead poisoning is better than immobilizing a bad person with a jolt of electricity..

You can shoot them with a firearm. But god forbid you use a tazer instead...

What kind of mind fuking logic is this?

Man, the founding fathers would have had a ball explaining what the word infringe meant!

 

[Waher]

It depends on what the restriction is. It will be interesting to see if the Brookline PD allows Taser carry for the little people.

Exactly why I hope the Comm2A case is allowed to continue pending review of any new legislation.

 

[mcb]

Stun guns include batons that shock people when you poke them.

I’ll take two of these...

 

[amm5061]

Not that I need one , but the second I can buy one , I will.
Cause f*ck you , that's why .

Same. f*** outta here with that shit.

I’ll take two of these...

Put me down for a couple, too. Sounds like a good group buy.


So, here's a question: do you have to put trigger locks on your stun guns, or otherwise lock them up when not in use? Are they going to be treated like an unsecured firearm if you let one out of your direct control? Does it have to be completely discharged and locked in a secure container in the trunk of your car when transporting it?

 

[Waher]

So GOAL sent out an alert, but I think their map is wrong because NJ caved in court to legalize stun guns & tazers and isn't a full prohibition state anymore.

 

[Coyote33]

another email alert:

Alert – Unnecessary Stun Gun Bill On The Move - Please Contact Your State Senator Immediately – Urge Them Not To Support S.2476

Following MA SJC Ruling, MA Legislature Rushes To Criminalize Possession of Electronic Devices Without a License

Last week, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court reversed their erroneous ruling regarding criminal possession of stun guns, citing, “we conclude that the absolute prohibition against civilian possession of stun guns … is in violation of the Second Amendment”.

At first glance, one would think this is cut and dry, and that Massachusetts would join the majority of states that do not criminalize the sale and possession of electronic self-defense devices.

Sadly, this is not to be, after our Supreme Judicial Court recognized that prohibiting possession is unconstitutional, the legislature has decided to not only take this up, but to do so in a hurry.

On Monday, April 23, 2018 the Joint Committee on Public Safety & Homeland Security reported S.2476 favorably out of committee. The bill is now in the Senate Committee on Ways & Means.

As written, the legislation would criminalize sale and possession without a license to carry (LTC) or FID card. Additionally it would require all electronic devices to have an integrated device that would track the number of times the device has been discharged. This change in the law would also leave no provision for non-residents, many of whom live in states where these devices are sold over the counter.

GOAL is urging all Massachusetts residents to contact their state senator immediately and urge them to contact Senate Ways & Means Chair Sen. Karen Spilka and Vice-Chair Sen. Joan Lovely. Your senator should urge them not to support S.2476, as written. It is unnecessary and, as the SJC has ruled, unconstitutional.

Issues with S.2476

• As noted by the SJC, prohibition of these devices is unconstitutional.
• A burdensome licensing system is completely unnecessary (see above), the vast majority of the country does not license these devices (see maps below) – and there are no issues.
• The current language would also leave no provision for non-residents, many of whom live in states where these devices are sold over the counter.
• Reminder, MA had an unnecessary licensing scheme for over a decade for pepper spray, which they finally repealed four years ago. There have been no issues since then with these products being sold over the counter.
• The current language offers overly severe penalties for possession or sale of these devices, which are sold over the counter in the majority of the country.This includes a penalty of up to ten years in prison.
• Requiring devices to have an integral discharge counter serves no purpose for citizens. This measure was initially put into the existing law to track use of these tools by law enforcement. Also, to our knowledge, basic stun guns are not sold configured in this manner.

Please take action immediately and call your senator – NO on S.2476 it’s needless and our legislature should be worrying about addressing actual issues!

 

[ggboy]

So what is the status of the Taser legislation now?
ggboy

 

[amm5061]

So what is the status of the Taser legislation now?
ggboy

We have to pass it so we can find out what's in it!

 

[ggboy]

wern't they supposed to vote on it by now?
ggboy

 

[dennism]

June 17 is the deadline IIRC

 

[MisterHappy]

Anyone with a Green Card can have one. That would make it easy, as the licensing scheme is already set up.

 

[Coyote33]

Anyone with a Green Card can have one. That would make it easy, as the licensing scheme is already set up.

 

[amm5061]

Anyone with a Green Card can have one. That would make it easy, as the licensing scheme is already set up.

Shhhhh! Don't remind them about that.

 

[Coyote33]

So, was "deadly force" justified for a stolen pizza?

Alleged pizza thief who was subdued with Taser in Brimfield makes bail