Stun guns in MA

[Christian]

Interesting. My girlfriend and I were talking about a similar scenario where what if you bought an RV and lived out of it, with no traditional house.

Coincidentally I just read something about that the other day. It depends on the situation on how the RV is being used, the RV itself, and where it is. If it's tied to a mortgage the IRS considers it a home and you can deduct the interest if it has cooking, sleeping, and bathroom areas(IIRC IRS 936). I believe if it's in a park or on property hooked up to water and power supplies it's considered a home, it may not have to be hooked up but why take the chance. In a parking lot/rest stop/street the police consider it an automobile and can perform a warrant-less search just like a car if they have probable cause. There's a lot of grey area with RVs, definitely a case for due diligence especially if you're going to park it somewhere and have a few adult beverages.

Edit: Old references so thing may have changed.

http://www.marxrv.com/skp/4thamendment.htm

https://ttlc.intuit.com/questions/1660861-is-an-rv-considered-a-second-home

http://en.allexperts.com/q/Tax-Law-Questions-932/RV-vacation-home.htm

 

[Garys]

More here: http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/194517/

The link there that is supposed to go to Volokh, goes to a different story. Volokh blogs at the WaPo now, so I found the case name there and searched for the brief. I tried to find other documents at the SJC site, but didn't have any luck. Maybe someone else will have better luck.

 

[Quiet]

Interesting. My girlfriend and I were talking about a similar scenario where what if you bought an RV and lived out of it, with no traditional house.

If it is mobile, an RV is a home in some places, in others it's not a home. (The IRS treats it as a home (or as a second home) for tax purposes.) If it's up on a cinderblock foundation or hardwired, I believe everywhere it is a home.

Traveling down the road is a huge issue in uncertainty in many areas of the country, contrary to what some here on NES have been saying. Technically, the entire inside area with all of the storage areas are in the passenger compartment, so rules on transporting guns in the passenger compartment of a car apply. In MA, for example, you couldn't transport a large capacity rifle inside the motorhome, it would have to be transported unloaded and locked in an outside compartment. It's a nightmare.

Of course leaving New England by road with any high capacity magazines legally is not possible since you must travel through New York.

 

[RDG]

Traveling down the road is a huge issue in uncertainty in many areas of the country, contrary to what some here on NES have been saying. Technically, the entire inside area with all of the storage areas are in the passenger compartment, so rules on transporting guns in the passenger compartment of a car apply. In MA, for example, you couldn't transport a large capacity rifle inside the motorhome, it would have to be transported unloaded and locked in an outside compartment. It's a nightmare.

Do you have a reference backing that up?

 

[92G]

Note that the SJC solicited Amicus briefs, which in itself is interesting. I don't think the decision is as clear cut as you obviously do.

When was the last time a MA judge ruled anything reasonable in a firearms related case?
im not saying this case is hopeless, but i am saying MA judges are hopeless

 

[Glockster30]

Originally Posted by Quiet
Traveling down the road is a huge issue in uncertainty in many areas of the country, contrary to what some here on NES have been saying. Technically, the entire inside area with all of the storage areas are in the passenger compartment, so rules on transporting guns in the passenger compartment of a car apply. In MA, for example, you couldn't transport a large capacity rifle inside the motorhome, it would have to be transported unloaded and locked in an outside compartment. It's a nightmare.

Do you have a reference backing that up?

Yeah, I don't follow this either. I have an SUV (no trunk) and carry my hi-cap rifle/shotguns unloaded in locked cases inside the vehicle.

 

[WatchCityCPA]

When was the last time a MA judge ruled anything reasonable in a firearms related case?
im not saying this case is hopeless, but i am saying MA judges are hopeless

http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/466/466mass168.html

 

[Quiet]

Do you have a reference backing that up?

Which, in general or any part in particular?

If you're referring to my assertion that you can't carry a high capacity rifle in the passenger compartment in MA, I should have added "unless it's in a locked container" as pointed out by Glockster:

Yeah, I don't follow this either. I have an SUV (no trunk) and carry my hi-cap rifle/shotguns unloaded in locked cases inside the vehicle.

ETA if you want to start with the NRAILA

If you travel with a trailer or camper that is hauled by an automobile, it is advisable to transport the firearms unloaded, cased and locked in the trunk of the car. If your vehicle is of the type in which driving and living spaces are not separated, the problem becomes one of access. If the firearm is carried on or about the person, or placed in the camper where it is readily accessible to the driver or any passenger, state and local laws regarding concealed carrying of firearms may apply. It is recommended, therefore, that the firearm be transported unloaded, cased, and placed in a locked rear compartment of the camper or mobile home, where it is inaccessible to the driver or any passenger.

Generally, a mobile home is considered a home if it is not attached to a towing vehicle, and is permanently attached to utilities, placed on blocks, or otherwise parked in such a manner that it cannot immediately be started up and used as a vehicle.

Once you reach your destination, state and local law will govern the ownership, possession, and transportation of your firearms.

http://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/articles/2010/guide-to-the-interstate-transportation.aspx

 

[terraformer]

This won't be the only amicus the court sees. And I am glad EV did this because it allows us todo us on MA specific issues.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Bumping this thread in anticipation......

The case will be heard by the SJC in two weeks and Comm2A is filing an amicus brief. This is, in my opinion, one of the better amicus briefs we've produced and it should be a must-read for anyone who cares about Second Amendment case law. The questions are:

1) Whether G. L. c. 140, § 131J, which criminalizes the private possession of so-called “stun guns,” infringes on the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms as defined by the Supreme Court’s Heller and McDonald decisions;
2) whether, and how, the Second Amendment protection applies outside one’s “home” in the case of a homeless person

This fits squarely within the Comm2A domain as our prime directive, to the extent we can call it that, is to help steer the development of case law that supports the Second Amendment right of individuals to keep and bear 'arms'.

Stay tuned. We have a great brief and this will be an interesting case.

 

[ISOTOX]

So we can possess guns but not stun guns? Seems silly to me.

Go to your room and shelter in place....help will be along shortly.....

 

[Erichkruger]

What a list to be on.

Such a strange thing that CA is not on that list. You mean even CA has its good points...or is it just the state of Jefferson i'm thinking of?

 

[Pete85]

Bumping this thread in anticipation......

The case will be heard by the SJC in two weeks and Comm2A is filing an amicus brief. This is, in my opinion, one of the better amicus briefs we've produced and it should be a must-read for anyone who cares about Second Amendment case law. The questions are:



This fits squarely within the Comm2A domain as our prime directive, to the extent we can call it that, is to help steer the development of case law that supports the Second Amendment right of individuals to keep and bear 'arms'.

Stay tuned. We have a great brief and this will be an interesting case.

Any idea on which way the SJC is leaning on this one? I'm all for removing the restrictions on stun guns. Freedom issues aside, the way I see it, the more options available before having to resort to lethal force, the better.

 

[45collector]

Such a strange thing that CA is not on that list. You mean even CA has its good points...or is it just the state of Jefferson i'm thinking of?

Jefferson Strong!!!!!

 

[terraformer]

And here is Comm2A's amicus in the Caetano case in front of the SJC.
http://www.comm2a.org/images/PDFs/caetano_amicus.pdf

 

[terraformer]

Well, like I had said, AWARE's amicus wouldn't be the only one in this case.

For more read http://www.comm2a.org/index.php/55-projects/215-caetano
While domestic violence groups piled on in the Holden case, here is a true victim who defended herself. Wonder if they will support her case...

 

[Cap]

And here is Comm2A's amicus in the Caetano case in front of the SJC.
http://www.comm2a.org/images/PDFs/caetano_amicus.pdf

Well done.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Well done.

Thanks. We think the brief is very good and very readable. We just don't have the bandwidth to write up a good synopsis of the case and of our brief. We'd like to do this for every case and should probably recruit people to help with that effort.....

....anyone, anyone? Bueller? Anyone?

 

[Riverside]

And here is Comm2A's amicus in the Caetano case in front of the SJC.
http://www.comm2a.org/images/PDFs/caetano_amicus.pdf

Attorney Keith Langer has written an excellent brief, as usual. It is well written, concise, and easy for someone like myself to understand. I hope the SJC can do the same.
Nicely done, Comm2A.

 

[cekim]

Well, like I had said, AWARE's amicus wouldn't be the only one in this case.

For more read http://www.comm2a.org/index.php/55-projects/215-caetano
While domestic violence groups piled on in the Holden case, here is a true victim who defended herself. Wonder if they will support her case...

No, they want women to scrunch their faces to avoid rape.

 

[Ringworm]

No, they want women to scrunch their faces to avoid rape.

I thought it was "Shelter in place and pee your pants"? Now I'm confused...

 

[Cap]

Mods combine please -
http://www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/threads/252729-Stun-guns-in-MA

 

[namedpipes]

I know, I know. Serious case to watch.

Still, this WAS my understanding of an RV as a home:

[video=youtube_share;L2w7z0aB3l0]http://youtu.be/L2w7z0aB3l0[/video]

Based on the convo above, only if hooked up in a more or less normal setting.

 

[mikeyp]

I thought it was "Shelter in place and pee your pants"? Now I'm confused...

Nope, new thing is the #antirapeface http://www.northeastshooters.com/vb...berals-new-way-to-stop-a-rape-is-it-a-firearm

 

[Riverside]

No, they want women to scrunch their faces to avoid rape.

My opinion :Many of the vocal groups speaking out against Domestic Violence are only interested in women who are portrayed as helpless victims. That's what brings in the revenue. To speak up in support of a beaten woman who fought back would be contrary to their "anti-violence" agenda. I'd be pleasantly surprised if any of the leaders of these groups stood up to support this case.
Best regards.

 

[terraformer]

My opinion :Many of the vocal groups speaking out against Domestic Violence are only interested in women who are portrayed as helpless victims. That's what brings in the revenue. To speak up in support of a beaten woman who fought back would be contrary to their "anti-violence" agenda. I'd be pleasantly surprised if any of the leaders of these groups stood up to support this case.
Best regards.

Which is why our brief said this:

Nothing empowers a diminutive woman in the face of a raging attacker more than being willing and able to defend herself.

 

[June4th]

And here is Comm2A's amicus in the Caetano case in front of the SJC.
http://www.comm2a.org/images/PDFs/caetano_amicus.pdf

I love that the brief also grouped the use of knives and clubs in defensive force continuum.

 

[Individualist]

I'm still waiting for the day when I can legally go pop some pie tins with a freakin' slingshot with my kids... Hard to comprehend the number of freedoms that have been taken away from us in this F'ing State in less than a generation.

 

[Jorg]

Stun guns are available at Cabelas in E. Hartford,
They are legal to posses in the home in CT.

 

[browncoat]

I'm still waiting for the day when I can legally go pop some pie tins with a freakin' slingshot with my kids... Hard to comprehend the number of freedoms that have been taken away from us in this F'ing State in less than a generation.

I thought sling shots were legal. The thing that I've read in the law being banned is slung shot, which is like a black Jack.