Stun Gun Challenge (Martel v. Healey)

[slap shot]

Just curious: does this challenge also include the ability to possess and carry tasers?

The intro leads me to believe they would be treated as one and the same.

INTRODUCTIONA Taser is a conducted electrical weapon that shoots two wired probes into the skin of thetarget using a compressed nitrogen gas propellant. The probes then emit an electrical pulselasting a few seconds that causes involuntary muscle contractions and temporarily impairedmotor skills or involuntary immobilization. See http://www.taser.com/self-defense;http://www.taser.com/research-and-safety/how-a-taser-works. A stun gun emits a similarelectrical charge, but requires closer contact as the device must make contact with the target’sskin. Mass. Gen. Law. ch. 140 § 131J establishes an absolute ban on the possession, sale, or useof all electrical weapons, even in the home, including Tasers or stun guns, with exceptions onlyfor certain law enforcement officers acting in the course of their official duties and dealersselling to law enforcement. Section 131J states, “No person shall possess a portable device orweapon 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.” Section 131J alsoprohibits the sale of electrical weapons to anyone other than law enforcement agencies. Thepenalty for violation of section 131J is a fine ranging from $500 to $1000, imprisonment fromsix months to two and one half years, or both.Plaintiffs are all residents of Massachusetts. See Exhibits 1-3. Plaintiffs Martel andBates are licensed to carry concealed firearms in the state of Massachusetts and have extensivetraining in firearms and self-defense. See Exhibits 1-2. Plaintiff Major has moral objections tousing firearms even in self-defense. See Exhibit 3. Based upon Plaintiffs’ training andexperience, Plaintiffs each believe there are certain situations in which they would prefer to carry a Taser or stun gun in lieu of a more deadly firearm for self-defense purposes. Plaintiffs wish to purchase and possess Tasers or stun guns for lawful self-defense purposes and would do so butfor their fear of prosecution, fines, and imprisonment under Section 131J. Defendant’senforcement of Section 131J therefore violates Plaintiffs’ Second Amendment rights (asincorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment) and irreparably injures Plaintiffs on an ongoingbasis. Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit to challenge this unconstitutional practice and now seekpreliminary injunctive relief to abate these ongoing injuries.

 

[DarkRyu]

Didn't someone win a case against the state of Mass about a year ago? How many times do you have to fight the same fight?

 

[amm5061]

Didn't someone win a case against the state of Mass about a year ago? How many times do you have to fight the same fight?

I think you're thinking of Caetano. The case was dropped after being sent back to the SJC from the USSC. Basically USSC smacked them on the wrist for mis-applying Heller, and rather than overturn the case which would overturn the MA stun gun ban, they just dropped it. Because **** your right to self defense, that's why.

 

[MachineHead]

The intro leads me to believe they would be treated as one and the same.

Thanks, slap shot. I wasn't able read the report at he time.

 

[Dadstoys]

Keep up the good work

 

[JJ4]

Bravo. Keep it up Comm2a!!!

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Didn't someone win a case against the state of Mass about a year ago? How many times do you have to fight the same fight?

As many as it takes.

Remember the heathen devil weed case ( Wesson v. Fowler). We won, but the state took the position that applied only to those two plaintiffs and did not change applied law or policy. It took a second case, which we also won (and collected legal fees for) in order for the state to change its tune.

The state is like a nerd asking the hot girl for a date. Sometimes it takes the same answer, repeated several times, for the message to sink in.

 

[EC1]

As many as it takes.

Remember the heathen devil weed case ( Wesson v. Fowler). We won, but the state took the position that applied only to those two plaintiffs and did not change applied law or policy. It took a second case, which we also won (and collected legal fees for) in order for the state to change its tune.

The state is like nerd asking the hot girl for a date. Sometimes it takes the same answer, repeated several times, for the message to sink in.

Too bad it doesn't work with voters as the same idiots keep getting elected.

 

[DavidC77]

Today we filed a motion for preliminary injunction seeking to prevent the Commonwealth for enforcing the ban.

Enjoy

Thank You Comm2A

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Filing a PI effectively fast-tracks because we're claiming 1) we're gonna win and 2) the harm is so great that it needs immediate redress.

Normally this isn't a great move in 2A cases where there's so little case law and a reluctance by the courts to treat the Second Amendment as an actually right. But here it should work very well for us.

 

[JJ4]

This is one case where the PR looks very good for our side and very bad for the state:

E.g. "The AG's office stated the the ban on less-lethal electronic defense devices (e.g. Tasers) did not infringe upon the second amendment because the plaintiffs could still purchase a gun for self defense."

 

[wahsben]

The right to protect and defend one's life and the lives of our loved ones should never require permission from anyone. Unfortunately we have allowed our servants to dictate to us what we can and can't do in regards to our self preservation. Sadly it will never end since there are those that feel the need to dictate our lives along with those that want others to dictate our lives.

 

[rwl1955]

another small donation inbound

 

[rwl1955]

The right to protect and defend one's life and the lives of our loved ones should never require permission from anyone. Unfortunately we have allowed our servants to dictate to us what we can and can't do in regards to our self preservation. Sadly it will never end since there are those that feel the need to dictate our lives along with those that want others to dictate our lives.

*******
Because they have been indoctrinated into the nanny state and the govt. is our friend(unless the Republicans are in charge). Dependency is not a virtue, it's a crutch.

 

[not new guy]

This thread title had me hoping I'd see Healey getting electrocuted when I opened the thread. Sigh.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Today's Press Release

This is one case where the PR looks very good for our side and very bad for the state:

E.g. "The AG's office stated the the ban on less-lethal electronic defense devices (e.g. Tasers) did not infringe upon the second amendment because the plaintiffs could still purchase a gun for self defense."

The Commonwealth is continuing to stick to the narrowest individual rights reading of the Second Amendment possible under Heller. In effect, the only thing protected by the Second Amendment in their view is the right to possess a handgun in the home. And even that is subject to heavy regulation and zero due process.

This excludes any right to sell or purchase, a right to carry, a right to any weapon other than a handgun, the right to travel with a gun or to maintain proficiency, etc.

 

[Matt_SERE]

Today's Press Release

The Commonwealth is continuing to stick to the narrowest individual rights reading of the Second Amendment possible under Heller. In effect, the only thing protected by the Second Amendment in their view is the right to possess a handgun in the home. And even that is subject to heavy regulation and zero due process.

This excludes any right to sell or purchase, a right to carry, a right to any weapon other than a handgun, the right to travel with a gun or to maintain proficiency, etc.

Link above did not work for me.

https://www.cir-usa.org/category/case-updates/

Keep up the good fight.

 

[cobalt]

Keep it up guys!

As many as it takes.

Remember the heathen devil weed case ( Wesson v. Fowler). We won, but the state took the position that applied only to those two plaintiffs and did not change applied law or policy. It took a second case, which we also won (and collected legal fees for) in order for the state to change its tune.

The state is like a nerd asking the hot girl for a date. Sometimes it takes the same answer, repeated several times, for the message to sink in.

Does that make you the hot girl?

 

[Rob Boudrie]

The Commonwealth is continuing to stick to the narrowest individual rights reading of the Second Amendment possible under Heller. In effect, the only thing protected by the Second Amendment in their view is the right to possess a handgun in the home. And even that is subject to heavy regulation and zero due process.

The state is taking the position that Heller applies in a symbolic, but not practical, manner.

Specifically, the state had rules that the 2A does not protect access to an LTC as denial of such is an administrative, not a punitive, burden. Getting that logic overturned is a slow uphill battle, as it is hard to get the courts to accept that such is no different that an "administrative burden" barring access to voting.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Link above did not work for me.

https://www.cir-usa.org/category/case-updates/

Keep up the good fight.

Fixed: https://www.cir-usa.org/2017/03/pre...-the-commonwealths-ban-on-non-lethal-weapons/

 

[Al-Jim19]

Amazon purchase made today. Reminder to all on nes, use the comm2a link!

Very much hoping tasers become accessible to us all.

 

[Coyote33]

The right to protect and defend one's life and the lives of our loved ones should never require permission from anyone. Unfortunately we have allowed our servants to dictate to us what we can and can't do in regards to our self preservation. Sadly it will never end since there are those that feel the need to dictate our lives along with those that want others to dictate our lives.

Well put!

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

The AG filed her opposition to our Motion for Preliminary Injunction today. Suffice it to say that Massachusetts has no intention of following New Jersey's lead by conceding. While the AG's primary argument is that a PI is inappropriate for this kind of case, it's clear that they they intend to vigorously defend 131J.

I'll post a link as soon as it's available on re-cap.

 

[VetteGirlMA]

The AG filed her opposition to our Motion for Preliminary Injunction today. Suffice it to say that Massachusetts has no intention of following New Jersey's lead by conceding. While the AG's primary argument is that a PI is inappropriate for this kind of case, it's clear that they they intend to vigorously defend 131J.

I'll post a link as soon as it's available on re-cap.

What is she saying that the supreme court is wrong? How is it even possible to defend a law that the supreme court has said is indefensible? I can't wait to hear this argument.

 

[MisterHappy]

If it's not illegal to be illegal it's not indefensible to ignore SCOTUS

Q.E.D.

 

[cobalt]

The AG filed her opposition to our Motion for Preliminary Injunction today. Suffice it to say that Massachusetts has no intention of following New Jersey's lead by conceding. While the AG's primary argument is that a PI is inappropriate for this kind of case, it's clear that they they intend to vigorously defend 131J.

I'll post a link as soon as it's available on re-cap.

I appreciate the updates on these cases.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

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

Still, the plaintiffs argue that the 2016 Caetano decision made clear that a law prohibiting
electrical weapons is unconstitutional. But Caetano did no such thing. Setting aside Justice
Alito’s concurrence, which garnered only two votes, Caetano merely held that the Supreme
Judicial Court applied the wrong reasoning in upholding Section 131J.

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

The Court explained that the SJC was wrong to consider whether electrical weapons “were
in common use at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment” as indicative of whether the
Second Amendment extends to such weapons. Similarly, the SJC incorrectly concluded that
electrical weapons were “unusual” because they were “a thoroughly modern invention.” Id. at
1027–28. But the Caetano court did not hold that electrical weapons are “arms” protected by the
Second Amendment; did not say that Section 131J is invalid; and did not explain what test the
SJC should use to evaluate that question. See id. at 1027–28; 1033 (Justice Alito decrying the
Court’s “grudging per curiam”). Indeed, although given the opportunity to make a broader
ruling, the Caetano court offered no more, and sent the case back to the SJC for further
proceedings.3

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

The plaintiffs cannot plausibly argue that electrical
weapons are “lineal descendants” of weapons in common use when the Second Amendment was
ratified. And the weapons available to colonial militiamen did not have features that were
precursors of those in present-day electrical weapons, which are wholly different. For example,
electrical weapons do not discharge rounds, do not need to be reloaded, injure without leaving a
physical trace on their victims, and, most conspicuously, deploy electricity to incapacitate their
target. As a result, electrical weapons remain outside the Second Amendment’s reach.

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

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

 

[Mass-diver]

What is she saying that the supreme court is wrong? How is it even possible to defend a law that the supreme court has said is indefensible? I can't wait to hear this argument.

This. I just don't get it.

 

[amm5061]

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?

 

[JayMcB]

Jesus Christ.... Why is she going to continue to waste our ****ing tax dollars on stupid shit like this?

Because she can. And...once she exhausts her existing budget, she can go back to Hack Hill and demand more....and she gets it.

She could've saved the state so much money by just conceding.

Doesn't fit the statist crack-sweat scumbag moonbat agenda

Why do these idiots have such a hardon for banning stun guns?

Because gunz. ANY gunz. Even FINGER gunz, or pop-tart gunz