• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

Stun Gun Challenge (Martel v. Healey)

Given the US AGs big song and dance about how AGs must protect the constitution above all else, I just wonder how the local talent will justify taking a position that is, per the recent USSC decision cited, pretty unambiguously unconstitutional.
 
Put this in perspective a little bit. Both Heller and McDonald were 5-4 decisions (McDonald was actually a 4,1-4 decision, but that's besides the point), with the dissenting justices holding the opinion that the Second Amendment does NOT protect an individual right unconnected to service in a militia. Much of the federal judiciary and most Democratic politicians also believe that the Supreme Court got it wrong. The opinion is particularly strong in Massachusetts where we have a 41 year legal history that says the Second Amendment does NOT protect and individual right:
The chances appear remote that this amendment will ultimately be read to control the States, for unlike some other provisions of the Bill of Rights, this is not directed to guaranteeing the rights of individuals, but rather, as we have said, to assuring some freedom of State forces from national interference.
Click to expand...
Should the amendment perchance be held in the future to restrain the States in some fashion, one would suppose that the States' regulatory authority would remain.
Click to expand...
-Commonwealth v. Davis, 1976 SJC

So the Commonwealth has, and will continue to, try and contain the scope of the Second Amendment. In the past they've described it as a limited right, like a "Venn Diagram", covering the intersection of handguns and homes. They'll continue to refer to the Second Amendment as a 'limited' right and the question of what constitutes bearable arms and 'novel'.
 
Knuckle Dragger said:
Put this in perspective a little bit. Both Heller and McDonald were 5-4 decisions (McDonald was actually a 4,1-4 decision, but that's besides the point), with the dissenting justices holding the opinion that the Second Amendment does NOT protect an individual right unconnected to service in a militia. Much of the federal judiciary and most Democratic politicians also believe that the Supreme Court got it wrong. The opinion is particularly strong in Massachusetts where we have a 41 year legal history that says the Second Amendment does NOT protect and individual right:
-Commonwealth v. Davis, 1976 SJC

So the Commonwealth has, and will continue to, try and contain the scope of the Second Amendment. In the past they've described it as a limited right, like a "Venn Diagram", covering the intersection of handguns and homes. They'll continue to refer to the Second Amendment as a 'limited' right and the question of what constitutes bearable arms and 'novel'.
Click to expand...

How can they do this with a straight face after the Heller and McDonald cases? Does Mass pull this crap because until Comm2A, no one fought back?
 
Don't be shocked when your oral arguments go Heller-well and you still get denied summary judgement.

I've seen cases that were so slam-dunk as to make your head spin. And the judge saying, "Well, I don't think SJ will suffice - we need to hear this out in court."

Worst was a former client who was willed the next-door neighbor's house. Will was written a decade prior to death, specifically excluded estranged daughter and gave everything to client. Client spent YEARS caring for the neighbor's property and the elderly neighbor. They had no idea they'd been named as beneficiary.

Daughter, after death, comes looking for house and sues.

The will was 100% air tight. Judge ignores summary judgement and eventually strong-arms client into paying her off in a settlement.

Judge was a class-A D. Depending on how the judge feels, law and Constitution and the like are irrelevant.
 
Dennis in MA said:
Don't be shocked when your oral arguments go Heller-well and you still get denied summary judgement.

I've seen cases that were so slam-dunk as to make your head spin. And the judge saying, "Well, I don't think SJ will suffice - we need to hear this out in court."

Worst was a former client who was willed the next-door neighbor's house. Will was written a decade prior to death, specifically excluded estranged daughter and gave everything to client. Client spent YEARS caring for the neighbor's property and the elderly neighbor. They had no idea they'd been named as beneficiary.

Daughter, after death, comes looking for house and sues.

The will was 100% air tight. Judge ignores summary judgement and eventually strong-arms client into paying her off in a settlement.

Judge was a class-A D. Depending on how the judge feels, law and Constitution and the like are irrelevant.
Click to expand...


These kinds of judges need to be removed from the bench and disbarred for life.
 
Lank said:
How can they do this with a straight face after the Heller and McDonald cases? Does Mass pull this crap because until Comm2A, no one fought back?
Click to expand...
Pretty much. But this obstructionism isn't limited to Massachusetts. There's been a full-on anti-2A revolt in the lower courts across the country who, more often than not, have failed to treat the Second Amendment as a 'normal' right. Take for instance Ninth Circuit Judge Kozinski's 'rumination' in Fisher:

In other contexts, we don’t let constitutional rights hinge on unbounded discretion; the Supreme Court has told us, for example, that “[t]he First Amendment prohibits the vesting of such unbridled discretion in a government official.” Despite what some may continue to hope, the Supreme Court seems unlikely to reconsider Heller. The time has come to treat the Second Amendment as a real constitutional right. It’s here to stay
Click to expand...
.

Also, a single Supreme Court decision never wipes the slate clean. Brown v. Board of Education did not end public segregation in 1954 and there you had a similar revolt with judges basically ruling that: 'I know what the federal government and Supreme Court say, but we have laws in this state'. The same thing happened and continue to happen after Roe v. Wade in 1974 with the courts often siding with states trying to undo or minimize that ruling.

We're in it for the long haul. Whatever you think of Donald Trump, just be glad that Hillary Clinton isn't filling any of the more than 100 open positions on the federal judiciary.

amm5061 said:
These kinds of judges need to be removed from the bench and disbarred for life.
Click to expand...
This sounds like a state court, not a federal judge. We have a good judge in this case.
 
Knuckle Dragger said:
We're in it for the long haul. Whatever you think of Donald Trump, just be glad that Hillary Clinton isn't filling any of the more than 100 open positions on the federal judiciary.
Click to expand...

Not a Trump fan by any stretch of the imagination, but Hillary would have been much worse in so many ways, especially this one.



Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
 
"We're in it for the long haul. Whatever you think of Donald Trump, just be glad that Hillary Clinton isn't filling any of the more than 100 open positions on the federal judiciary. "
*******
Trumps election proves there is a God and he hates liberals. HA!HA!
 
rwl1955 said:
"We're in it for the long haul. Whatever you think of Donald Trump, just be glad that Hillary Clinton isn't filling any of the more than 100 open positions on the federal judiciary. "
*******
Trumps election proves there is a God and he hates liberals. HA!HA!
Click to expand...

I hope every judge he finds is another Scalia!!!!!!!
 
jar said:
Scalia had a big love for "law-and-order" though. He was good on 2A, but he let his conservative biases influence his "originalism" on plenty of other issues.
Click to expand...

This, we need judges that are Pro2A but would vote against garbage like Civil Asset Forfeiture, or crap like eminent domain, etc.

-Mike
 
Nope, just judges who can read and interpret the original meaning and language of the constitution, and any other laws, as written at that time. Unfortunately, too many of them interpret it with current meanings of words, which have drastically changed.
 
babygorilla said:
Nope, just judges who can read and interpret the original meaning and language of the constitution, and any other laws, as written at that time. Unfortunately, too many of them interpret it with current meanings of words, which have drastically changed.
Click to expand...

Note the following from the Harvard Magazine article on Justice Breyer:

Active Liberty[FONT=&amp] set out six basic elements to consider in interpreting the Constitution or a statute: its [/FONT]language[FONT=&amp] and structure; [/FONT]history[FONT=&amp] showing what the words meant to the lawmakers who wrote it; [/FONT]tradition[FONT=&amp] telling how the words have been applied in the law; judicial [/FONT]precedents[FONT=&amp] interpreting the law; its [/FONT]purposes[FONT=&amp], or the values it embodies; and its [/FONT]consequences[FONT=&amp], or impact. “Some judges,” he wrote, “emphasize the use of language, history, and tradition,” like Antonin Scalia. “Others emphasize purpose and consequence,” like him. “These differences matter.”[/FONT]
Click to expand...
 
Knuckle Dragger said:
Yesterday the Attorney General filed her Cross Motion for Summary Judgement. Enjoy
Click to expand...

Wow, that is laughably bad and flawed logic.

TLDR: No 2nd amendment protection because we made some stuff up that they are not descended from weapons at the time of ratification, the plaintiffs have access to guns instead so even there is 2nd amendment protection, the plaintiffs are not harmed since they should carry a gun. BTW here's some anecdotes about how painful tasers are, and the legalese disclaimers about Tasers being potentially dangerous from their website that our intern found.
 
More painful than death??? [rofl]

Maybe if Taser stood for

Tickle
A
Suspect.
Enjoy.
Repeat.

It could fire feathers or something. Or maybe just a joy buzzer.
 
SCOTUS, March 21, 2016: "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.......the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding."

AGO, June 7, 2017: "Electrical weapons are not “arms” protected by the Second Amendment because they are not the modern-day equivalent of weapons commonly brought to militia service in the colonial era, nor are they in common use today."


round+2.jpg
 
As logically inconsistent as the argument is with SCOTUS directives, it is enough to give any judge who subscribes to the "but its guns and icky weapons" doctrine to say "argument accepted, motion granted" and it's time for another SCOTUS petition and the multi-year wait to maybe get heard.

It is hard to comprehend why the AG prefers people carry handguns instead of Tasers. I can only conclude her logic is the people wanting to carry Tasers will go unarmed rather than carry guns if she wins.

And, those handheld contact stun guns are really novelties and useless unless part of CQB traininig (VERY quick recovery when not in contact with the subject). The TASER brand (pneumatically fired probes on wires) is the "real thing". It is misnomeristic to use TASER as a generic term for electric stun gun.
 
Last edited:
You can buy the non-taser brand stun guns (which as I recall is what Caetano had,) over the counter in most states for as little as $10 bucks. It may be true that there are only a few hundred thousand of the $850 Taser brand stun guns in civilian hands but that's just a fraction of the market.

Not that it's relevant - they're still arms.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Similar threads

Finland Goes Pro-Gun
2
Replies
36
Views
897
Picton
Picton
Internet accuracy claims put to the test! (Backfire long range challenge.)
Replies
16
Views
455
Chevy 2 65
Chevy 2 65
New England gun tourism
Replies
26
Views
632
MisterHappy
MisterHappy
Gun Van.
Replies
9
Views
535
steven grammont
steven grammont
Biden Closing "Gun show loophole"
2
Replies
30
Views
858
zboys
zboys
Back
Top Bottom