Stun Gun Challenge (Martel v. Healey)

[Roy Rogers]

"Additionally, even if electrical weapons received Second Amendment protection, the
plaintiffs have not established that they have a right to carry these weapons without restriction in
public places, rather than only in the home for self-defense."

So the right to carry a weapon for self-defense should be available only to someone who is "in the home." Thus, that right of self-defense is not available to someone who does not have a home, who in other words is homeless?

 

[BostonBullit]

Wait, did she just say that if they ARE protected by the Second Amendment then it only applies to self defense inside the home (Heller)? Wouldn't that mean she recognizes that we have a right to use arms for self defense inside the home and therefore should be, by default, permitted to own firearms for same?

 

[MachineHead]

Wait, did she just say that if they ARE protected by the Second Amendment then it only applies to self defense inside the home (Heller)? Wouldn't that mean she recognizes that we have a right to use arms for self defense inside the home and therefore should be, by default, permitted to own firearms for same?

That's what I got out if it.

 

[Waher]

Wow, so a unanimous Supreme Court decision isn't good enough for Healey? Her arrogance knows no bounds.

If the fundamental right of self-defense does not protect Caetano, then the safety of all Americans is left to the mercy of state authorities who may be more concerned about disarming the people than about keeping them safe.

She is doing everything possible to live up to Alito's final statement in Caetano. Frankly, I hope this winds up before the court so she can be reprimanded on a national stage for being a deranged tyrant.

 

[JZ1018]

Jesus Christ.... Why is she going to continue to waste our ****ing tax dollars on stupid shit like this? She could've saved the state so much money by just conceding. Why do these idiots have such a hardon for banning stun guns?

The reason for banning stun guns is that they are a non-lethal form of self defense. Being non-lethal, they might appeal to people who don't want to carry a firearm for self defense. If more people carry a means to defend themselves against criminals, then the criminals will not have as much of a chance to rob someone so that they can then turn their lives around.

 

[drgrant]

Jesus Christ.... Why is she going to continue to waste our ****ing tax dollars on stupid shit like this? She could've saved the state so much money by just conceding. Why do these idiots have such a hardon for banning stun guns?

You think she cares for even a nanosecond about saving the taxpayers money?

 

[pastera]

Furthermore, granting the plaintiffs’ motion would require this Court to address the novel question of what test determines whether a weapon is an “arm” within the meaning of the Second Amendment. And, even if it discerned the operative test, the Court could grant injunctive relief only if it concludes that electrical weapons are “arms” protected by the Second Amendment and that civilians have a constitutional right to carry these weapons, without restriction, in public places.

3Stun guns are plainly “bearable arms.” As Heller explained, the term includes any “[w]eapo[n] of offence” or “thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands,” that is “carr[ied] . . . for the purpose of offensive or defensive action.” 554 U. S., at 581, 584

If I am correct the USSC already defined arms in Heller and reiterated the definition in Caetano so what is left for a lower court - the smackdown will be epic from the eight sitting members who already bitch slapped the SJC

Sent from my C6530 using Tapatalk

 

[beach]

This AG is so out of control, refugees have a constitutional right to enter our country, vote receive food stamps housing and medical but us US citizens don't have our constitutional rights.

 

[swatgig]

Can't have stun guns cuz they're not descendants of the militia weapons.

Can't have AR15s cuz they're descendants of the militia weapons.

Thanks for clearing that up Maura.

 

[Chevy 2 65]

This AG is so out of control, refugees have a constitutional right to enter our country, vote receive food stamps housing and medical but us US citizens don't have our constitutional rights.

^^this

 

[Noreaster]

Still sound an awful lot like the 'Second Amendment only protects arms in existence at the time of ratification' argument.

If someone were to use that argument, wouldn't it also translate to the bill of rights only protects people who existed at time of ratification?

 

[amm5061]

If someone were to use that argument, wouldn't it also translate to the bill of rights only protects people who existed at time of ratification?

A better analogy would be to say first amendment free speech protections don't apply to the internet because it wasn't in existence at the time of ratification. Also that freedom of religion does not apply to Mormonism or Scientology because clearly neither were in existence at the time of ratification.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

I think the best way to understand the Commonwealth's position (via the AG) in this and any other Second Amendment related case is through the historical lens of Comm v. Davis and the long line of state court cases that have followed. Massachusetts has never conceded that the Second Amendment protects an individual as opposed to a collective right - at least they haven't in any way that has a practical application. That's one reason we continue to get bizarre results like there's no right to a firearms license.

Most of the Commonwealth's democratic leadership and judiciary, not just Healey, think (though they probably won't say it) that the Supreme Court got it wrong in DC v. Heller. And up until November they probably figured that their chances of severely limiting the scope of Second Amendment protections was looking pretty good. They will not willingly give one inch in this area.

During the Caetano oral arguments in front of the SJC, the Commonwealth's attorney went so far as to describe the Second Amendment's protections as a 'Venn Diagram', limited to the intersection of the home and handguns. Anything outside that intersection doesn't enjoy any Second Amendment protection at all.

I find it very odd that with this one exception, politicians, pundits and the like don't have a problem saying that the Supreme Court got a decision wrong and that it should be 'fixed'. You hear this all the time about cases like Roe, Citizens United, Kelo, etc. But you almost never hear someone say that the Supreme Court got in wrong in Heller and that Heller should be reversed.

A better analogy would be to say first amendment free speech protections don't apply to the internet because it wasn't in existence at the time of ratification. Also that freedom of religion does not apply to Mormonism or Scientology because clearly neither were in existence at the time of ratification.

From DC v. Heller (p8):

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way.

 

[Dennis in MA]

Jesus Christ.... Why is she going to continue to waste our ****ing tax dollars on stupid shit like this? She could've saved the state so much money by just conceding. Why do these idiots have such a hardon for banning stun guns?

Because of the hundreds of cases per day of liquor stores and mom'n'pops being knocked over by guys with stun guns in this state. And the hundreds of victims of accidental tazing in our homes. And this is the preferred method of (fill in the blank) of today's criminals. . . who we do not mention the ethnicity of lest we be branded some sort of racist or sexist. (Ever notice that males commit most of the crimes? I think it's sexist to mention the wedding-tackle-department of a suspect on TV. It makes me feel like less of a man, er, exterior-wedding-tacklist. LOL)

 

[Mass-diver]

Because of the hundreds of cases per day of liquor stores and mom'n'pops being knocked over by guys with stun guns in this state. And the hundreds of victims of accidental tazing in our homes. And this is the preferred method of (fill in the blank) of today's criminals. . . who we do not mention the ethnicity of lest we be branded some sort of racist or sexist. (Ever notice that males commit most of the crimes? I think it's sexist to mention the wedding-tackle-department of a suspect on TV. It makes me feel like less of a man, er, exterior-wedding-tacklist. LOL)

We all know stun guns are weapons of war. The multi-trillion dollar stun gun industry has spent billions to convince the public that stun guns can be used by women to defend themselves. Of course, we all know that, in reality, tazers are only used by angry, scared, white men to murder millions of innnocent children.

 

[RImike]

If I am correct the USSC already defined arms in Heller and reiterated the definition in Caetano so what is left for a lower court - the smackdown will be epic from the eight sitting members who already bitch slapped the SJC

Sent from my C6530 using Tapatalk

Thus wouldn't this set the basis for magazine and so called AW's challenge?

 

[JJ4]

Here's the AG's Opposition to our Motion for PI.

True enough, but it's not very likely that the SJC had better reasoning that could be applied to this question.

Okay, so the SJC was wrong. Was the the SJC holding back in the interest of some dramatic judicial moment?

Still sound an awful lot like the 'Second Amendment only protects arms in existence at the time of ratification' argument.

Bravo, thanks for the great writeup. This whole thing would almost be comical if it weren't our civil rights on the line. Here's hoping for an EPIC smackdown from the SCOTUS (that is, assuming, the current venue sides with the AG and/or it gets appealed up there).

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Thus wouldn't this set the basis for magazine and so called AW's challenge?

I find it ironic that politicians want to ban ARs and AKs because they're supposedly 'weapons of war' and the SJC rules that that Second Amendment doesn't extend to stun guns because they (supposedly) have no military application...

 

[babygorilla]

Even more ironic is that we can have Garands & Moisins, ACTUAL SURPLUS weapons of war.

 

[Len-2A Training]

I find it ironic that politicians want to ban ARs and AKs because they're supposedly 'weapons of war' and the SJC rules that that Second Amendment doesn't extend to stun guns because they (supposedly) have no military application...

Politicians speak with forked tongue!

 

[pastera]

Thus wouldn't this set the basis for magazine and so called AW's challenge?

I believe it does based on a few facts that bridge Heller, McDonald and Caetano where Caetano strongly reiterates the findings in Heller and less so in McDonald.

For reasons of not giving aid to an enemy I won't spell it out here (we know we are watched) but if this goes back to the SCOTUS, I think we may see a much broader reading and clear ruling of what "arms" are protected. Critically study the opening paragraph in Caetano and its references to other cases and you will see where I am starting.

EDIT: I am strongly contemplating a critical paper studying Healy's Opposition that details how her position is a direct attack on vulnerable women who are victims of domestic abuse (Title:How Healy hurts Women)

 

[JJ4]

EDIT: I am strongly contemplating a critical paper studying Healy's Opposition that details how her position is a direct attack on vulnerable women who are victims of domestic abuse (Title:How Healy hurts Women)

If you do this please link on Facebook and encourage us to share far and wide.

 

[VetteGirlMA]

So the right to carry a weapon for self-defense should be available only to someone who is "in the home." Thus, that right of self-defense is not available to someone who does not have a home, who in other words is homeless?

Sounds like the words 'license to carry' means I am free to carry as much as I want in my house but nowhere else. I mean the contradictions and twists and turns are almost impossible to keep up with now. Good luck. I just sincerely hope that the judges who review this are not simple moronic gun grabbers and that they have some kind, a molecule for goodness sake, of common sense.

 

[Palladin]

From Heller:

The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.

so how is it we in MA are stilled screwed by trigger locks??

 

[pastera]

From Heller:



so how is it we in MA are stilled screwed by trigger locks??

Because the cost of compliance is orders of magnitude lower than the cost of litigation.
Also, we would need a ripe case with a clean defendant - not often found for storage laws without other issues that muddle the case

Sent from my C6530 using Tapatalk

 

[JZ1018]

Because the cost of compliance is orders of magnitude lower than the cost of litigation.
Also, we would need a ripe case with a clean defendant - not often found for storage laws without other issues that muddle the case

Sent from my C6530 using Tapatalk

I wonder if the guy in Cohasset would be good for this?

 

[cobalt]

Jesus Christ.... Why is she going to continue to waste our ****ing tax dollars on stupid shit like this? She could've saved the state so much money by just conceding. Why do these idiots have such a hardon for banning stun guns?

I'm pretty sure she would argue she's not spending tax payer money. She'd say she's using the State's (capital S) money. And when you go to the store to buy toilet paper or food, you are using the State's money - without her permission.

 

[JohnZ]

I find it ironic that politicians want to ban ARs and AKs because they're supposedly 'weapons of war' and the SJC rules that that Second Amendment doesn't extend to stun guns because they (supposedly) have no military application...

I have no respect left for courts/judges except that they can throw me in the slammer if I don't follow the rules. Come time for jury duty, I don't care what the judge says, what the law says or even what that lady typing on the tiny typewriter says. I'm voting for what I think is right.

Same goes for legislators. Seems like everyone in .gov is schizophrenic.

 

[MisterHappy]

Politicians speak with forked tongue!

Stop with the cultural appropriation.

Don't make you, wrong, though, homes! Wurd.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

On Wednesday we filed our Motion for Summary Judgement.