MA SJC rules stun gun ban violates the 2A

Pete85 said:
As written, it looks like that would only affect stun guns and not tasers. Although from the definition it gives to the term "Stun Gun", that could likely be interpreted that all tasers are also stun guns.
Click to expand...

I do believe that was the legislature's intent, yes. Taser = stun gun = electronic device.
 
inkdesigner said:
Based on what I can recall, in the new EPRO bill passed by the Senate, they mention amending Chapter 140, Section 121, line 44, and substituting the words "a stun gun or a pistol" in place of the words "a pistol" under the definition of Firearm.

I believe what that will do is classify a stun gun as a firearm, making, them subject to the EOPSS. This would mean they would need to be submitted to the Commonwealth for approval and inclusion on the list and they could only be sold thru an FFL to folks who have a FID/LTC and pass a NICS check. I'm sure the AG will also take the opportunity to regulate them thru her "super secret" consumer protection laws/list and make them impossible to purchase thru a FFL, much like she did with Gen 3 and up Glocks.

In other words, they will be legal, but the Commonwealth will make it such that there is no way for a person to purchase them in state.
Click to expand...

Great. Now I'm going to be a felon because my microwave uses the same transformer/capacitor/whatever electronic dohickey.

firestorm said:
People keep saying this, but what is the actual wording in the new law? What are they trying to require?
Click to expand...
Nobody needs the voltage thing that goes up.
 
inkdesigner said:
Based on what I can recall, in the new EPRO bill passed by the Senate, they mention amending Chapter 140, Section 121, line 44, and substituting the words "a stun gun or a pistol" in place of the words "a pistol" under the definition of Firearm.

I believe what that will do is classify a stun gun as a firearm, making, them subject to the EOPSS. This would mean they would need to be submitted to the Commonwealth for approval and inclusion on the list and they could only be sold thru an FFL to folks who have a FID/LTC and pass a NICS check. I'm sure the AG will also take the opportunity to regulate them thru her "super secret" consumer protection laws/list and make them impossible to purchase thru a FFL, much like she did with Gen 3 and up Glocks.

In other words, they will be legal, but the Commonwealth will make it such that there is no way for a person to purchase them in state.
Click to expand...

With REAL firearms, federal law prohibits you from buying them out of state. No such restriction applies to stun guns federally. So while you wont be able to get them from your LGS, you can get them out of state. A lot more straight forward then getting glocks (which is still easy)
 
CrackPot said:
With REAL firearms, federal law prohibits you from buying them out of state. No such restriction applies to stun guns federally. So while you wont be able to get them from your LGS, you can get them out of state. A lot more straight forward then getting glocks (which is still easy)
Click to expand...

Assuming out of state suppliers will sell into the Commonwealth or that AG doesn't threaten them for selling into the Commonwealth
 
inkdesigner said:
Assuming out of state suppliers will sell into the Commonwealth or that AG doesn't threaten them for selling into the Commonwealth
Click to expand...

I would think that the AG would have a difficult time going after them. Stun guns aren't restricted like firearms under federal law and in many other states, there's no significant regulation of them either. Even if they pay attention to the state on your ID, they have no way of knowing that you're not buying it for legal purposes in that state, with no intention of ever bringing it back to MA. Our court system can be pretty screwed up, so I wouldn't put it past Maura to try, but I don't really see it going anywhere.

As of right now, there are a couple of suppliers on the internet that have removed their restrictions on shipping to MA, though many (including the Amazon links posted previously in this thread) maintain their restrictions. At least at this point, since there is no law regarding selling stun guns in MA, there's nothing for the AG to use to go after them.
 
Pete85 said:
I would think that the AG would have a difficult time going after them. Stun guns aren't restricted like firearms under federal law and in many other states, there's no significant regulation of them either. Even if they pay attention to the state on your ID, they have no way of knowing that you're not buying it for legal purposes in that state, with no intention of ever bringing it back to MA. Our court system can be pretty screwed up, so I wouldn't put it past Maura to try, but I don't really see it going anywhere.
Click to expand...

You mean, like ammo? It isn't restricted by federal law like firearms, to my knowledge. We all agree it isn't illegal to have ammo shipped into MA (and TSUSA agrees with us). Yet, our AG has has somehow successfully bullied many, many, many out of state supplies into not shipping ammo here, under penalty of being taken to court. There is no reason to believe she won't pull this same stunt over electronic self defense devices.
 
inkdesigner said:
You mean, like ammo? It isn't restricted by federal law like firearms, to my knowledge. We all agree it isn't illegal to have ammo shipped into MA (and TSUSA agrees with us). Yet, our AG has has somehow successfully bullied many, many, many out of state supplies into not shipping ammo here, under penalty of being taken to court. There is no reason to believe she won't pull this same stunt over electronic self defense devices.
Click to expand...


Basically pant shitting and being unwilling to gamble even slightly with their business in an out of state courtroom. Like the company that got the C&D letter from NJ about "Ghost guns" and decided not to sell 80% lowers (Read: unregulated block of aluminum) to anyone in state anymore.

They are likely the same as those who won't sell anything to mass, they take one look at the politics and decide they don't want to spend thousands to hire a lawyer in a moonbat state when the AG commits lawfare against them. It will cost a bunch, and it's not a sure thing that they win even though they are doing nothing illegal because of the courts "But gunz" doctrine. It's easier for them as a business to say "Screw it, we don't do enough business there to justify the risk/expense" and write the state off.
 
inkdesigner said:
You mean, like ammo? It isn't restricted by federal law like firearms, to my knowledge. We all agree it isn't illegal to have ammo shipped into MA (and TSUSA agrees with us). Yet, our AG has has somehow successfully bullied many, many, many out of state supplies into not shipping ammo here, under penalty of being taken to court. There is no reason to believe she won't pull this same stunt over electronic self defense devices.
Click to expand...

TSUSA taking a stand has actually emboldened some companies. I know at least two that have changed their ammo policies since, and some that are now more willing to at least ship to an FFL.

Granted it's not enough for everyone, but it's at least a step in the right direction.
 
firestorm said:
Basically pant shitting and being unwilling to gamble even slightly with their business in an out of state courtroom. Like the company that got the C&D letter from NJ about "Ghost guns" and decided not to sell 80% lowers (Read: unregulated block of aluminum) to anyone in state anymore.

They are likely the same as those who won't sell anything to mass, they take one look at the politics and decide they don't want to spend thousands to hire a lawyer in a moonbat state when the AG commits lawfare against them. It will cost a bunch, and it's not a sure thing that they win even though they are doing nothing illegal because of the courts "But gunz" doctrine. It's easier for them as a business to say "Screw it, we don't do enough business there to justify the risk/expense" and write the state off.
Click to expand...

I think someone is assuming ship into MA. I was proposing you just cross the border and buy one. As long as its not Walmart, not two Fs will be given and you can carry your new toy back into MA. Sure, the AG could initiate open warfare on anyone who ships, but that is not the way I would work around this.
 
CrackPot said:
I think someone is assuming ship into MA. I was proposing you just cross the border and buy one. As long as its not Walmart, not two Fs will be given and you can carry your new toy back into MA. Sure, the AG could initiate open warfare on anyone who ships, but that is not the way I would work around this.
Click to expand...


There has literally been nothing stopping anyone from doing that for the last 20 or 30 years; how ever long they've been illegal in MA. Given how much the state hates people defending themselves, expect Maura to go after anyone shipping stun guns into MA that she can find.
 
amm5061 said:
There has literally been nothing stopping anyone from doing that for the last 20 or 30 years; how ever long they've been illegal in MA. Given how much the state hates people defending themselves, expect Maura to go after anyone shipping stun guns into MA that she can find.
Click to expand...
except being illegal to possess. at least now even with the ERPO language, they would be legal.
 
CrackPot said:
I think someone is assuming ship into MA. I was proposing you just cross the border and buy one. As long as its not Walmart, not two Fs will be given and you can carry your new toy back into MA. Sure, the AG could initiate open warfare on anyone who ships, but that is not the way I would work around this.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I was responding specifically to his post about why companies refuse to ship anything here. As far as stun guns you have been able to buy one in person out of state forever, it's just how legal it is to possess here afterwards.
 
Bill H.4670

SECTION 14. Subsection (a) of section 131L of said chapter 140 is hereby amended by inserting after the first sentence, as appearing in the 2016 Official Edition, the following 6 of 19 sentence:- It shall be unlawful to store or keep any stun gun in any place unless such weapon is secured in a locked container accessible only to the owner or other lawfully authorized user.

Section 131J. Sections 131¾, 131K and 131P shall not apply to stun guns. The secretary of public safety and security shall promulgate regulations restricting access or use of stun guns by non-licensed persons and establishing minimum safety and quality standards, safe storage requirements, education and safety training requirements and law enforcement training on the appropriate use of stun guns, which shall require that any stun gun purchased or used by a law enforcement or public safety official include a mechanism for tracking the number of times the stun gun has been fired
 
Palladin said:
Bill H.4670

SECTION 14. Subsection (a) of section 131L of said chapter 140 is hereby amended by inserting after the first sentence, as appearing in the 2016 Official Edition, the following 6 of 19 sentence:- It shall be unlawful to store or keep any stun gun in any place unless such weapon is secured in a locked container accessible only to the owner or other lawfully authorized user.

Section 131J. Sections 131¾, 131K and 131P shall not apply to stun guns. The secretary of public safety and security shall promulgate regulations restricting access or use of stun guns by non-licensed persons and establishing minimum safety and quality standards, safe storage requirements, education and safety training requirements and law enforcement training on the appropriate use of stun guns, which shall require that any stun gun purchased or used by a law enforcement or public safety official include a mechanism for tracking the number of times the stun gun has been fired
Click to expand...


so:

- still need "safe storage"
- no requirements for stun guns to be on the EOPS or AG's list

and... you can get an LTC for a stun gun without a safety cert?

am I reading that right?
 
milktree said:
so:

- still need "safe storage"
- no requirements for stun guns to be on the EOPS or AG's list

and... you can get an LTC for a stun gun without a safety cert?

am I reading that right?
Click to expand...

but they don't have a separate LTC classification for 'stun gun only'...and the new 131J states regs shall be created
 
milktree said:
so:

- still need "safe storage"
- no requirements for stun guns to be on the EOPS or AG's list

and... you can get an LTC for a stun gun without a safety cert?

am I reading that right?
Click to expand...
Yes, but EOPS can add those back in by regulation, along with any other regulation on safety, quality, storage, and training they can dream up.
 
kevin9 said:
Yes, but EOPS can add those back in by regulation, along with any other regulation on safety, quality, storage, and training they can dream up.
Click to expand...
. . . true and the AG can add it to her CMR as well or just "re-interpret" her current CMR without changing any documents (other than holding a press conference and issuing a memo).
 
Are there any stun guns thay have a coinnter that shows ho may times it has been fired?
Does any company actually make models that have this feature?
ggboy
 
ggboy said:
Are there any stun guns thay have a coinnter that shows ho may times it has been fired?
Does any company actually make models that have this feature?
ggboy
Click to expand...
Many (all current?) Taser models record firing data and have the capability to download it. Not sure about other brands. Didn't check on contact stun guns, but I suspect many do not, particularly the cheaper ones. Then again, not sure how many LEOs carry contact stun guns given the advantages of taser type stun guns and the close-contact options they have (ex. batons). As I read the law, the counter requirement is for LEO use only, not withstanding whatever rules EOPS may make up.
 
Last edited:
Tazers are not guns on the federal level so the EOPS bs is mute as you can drive to a boarder state and purchase and legally bring home. I should have phrased that as a question. Is my understanding correct.

Looks like this has been covered. Sorry.
 
I'm curious about what others would prefer.
Myself I'm thinking stun gun over tazer.

The tazers are pretty bulky and just from watching Cops and Live PD there seems to be too many variables to getting two prongs in perfect placement.
I'm thinking next to useless in winter here., I can't see those prongs piercing heavy jackets and such.
Someone with more experience might want to chime in on that .

The stun guns might require a more up close and personal approach , but the more concealable aspect seems more attractive.
I've seen them used a couple of times and they seem to knock some of the fight out of you.

Would like to hear from someone who's used one or the other or both .
 

Similar threads

Ma. March gun auction Major SUCCESS.
Replies
3
Views
302
Mesatchornug
Mesatchornug
Need a good 2A attorney for a friend
2 3 4
Replies
96
Views
3K
Len-2A Training
Len-2A Training
Biden's LEAD AMMO BAN?
Replies
8
Views
409
MGnoob
MGnoob
MA Law: carrying a gun where animals may be present
2
Replies
56
Views
2K
MisterHappy
MisterHappy
District Judge: Gun Ban For Illegal Immigrant Unconstitutional
2 3 4
Replies
96
Views
3K
Kurtz
Kurtz
Back
Top Bottom