• 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 guns in MA

jasons said:
Disappointing, but unfortunately not surprising. It almost sounded like he was tossing out a softball. I should know better.
Click to expand...

From our perspective is was a softball because we're keyed into those subtleties and we have our priorities. However, Caetano's attorney is an overworked public defender and carrying the 2A banner is not the first priority of him or his client. His primary concern is, appropriately, redressing the injustice done his client. It's okay for us to ride the coattails of a case like this to give the court a different perspective to consider. We can't expect a defendant like this to allow her need to be hijacked by our priorities.
 
Last edited:
Knuckle Dragger said:
From our perspective is was a softball because we're keyed into those subtleties and we have our priorities. However, Caetano's attorney is an overworked public defender and carrying the 2A banner is not the first priority of him or his client. His primary concern is, appropriately, redressing the injustice done his client. It's okay for us to ride the coattails of a case like this to give the court a different perspective to consider. We can't expect a defendant like this to allow her need to be hijacked by our priorities.
Click to expand...

I certainly wouldn't expect her to, but in this case wouldn't a strong 2A defense only help her case? I don't know how these arguments work. Is the defense allowed to "phone a friend" to help present (or at least prepare) their argument?
 
jasons said:
I certainly wouldn't expect her to, but in this case wouldn't a strong 2A defense only help her case? I don't know how these arguments work. Is the defense allowed to "phone a friend" to help present (or at least prepare) their argument?
Click to expand...

Well, I think they made the 2A case as strongly as they could and it does help her case substantially. My point is that we have a lot more depth, context and subject matter expertise than they do. We're more perceptive to some of the questions because we live and breath it.
 
When I learned this a while back I "thought how screwed up is that?" So Ma for the most part is anti gun. So imagine that someone buys into the anti argument but maybe works/lives in a dangerous area and the want something to protect themselves. They learn that they need to apply for an FID (I know that this has since changed) to buy pepper spray. SO you need a gun license for pepper spray. There is an application and fee and wait time so they decide to go another route. "Hey what about carrying one of those collapsible batons?" they think. Nope illegal to carry outside the home. Knife? If it's over a certain size that's a no go too. So you're back to the FID but why apply for an FID just apply for a class A and be done with it.

So Ma doesn't like guns but doesn't like less than lethal more.
 
Cero said:
When I learned this a while back I "thought how screwed up is that?" So Ma for the most part is anti gun. So imagine that someone buys into the anti argument but maybe works/lives in a dangerous area and the want something to protect themselves. They learn that they need to apply for an FID (I know that this has since changed) to buy pepper spray. SO you need a gun license for pepper spray. There is an application and fee and wait time so they decide to go another route. "Hey what about carrying one of those collapsible batons?" they think. Nope illegal to carry outside the home. Knife? If it's over a certain size that's a no go too. So you're back to the FID but why apply for an FID just apply for a class A and be done with it.

So Ma doesn't like guns but doesn't like less than lethal more.
Click to expand...

Your thinking seems logical, but the reason for outlawing stun guns as I understand it came from a fear of them being used by criminals to commit assaults, rapes, etc. I know that criminals don't care about the law by their very nature, but it makes the sheep feel good, just like the gun laws/bans.
 
Cero said:
When I learned this a while back I "thought how screwed up is that?" So Ma for the most part is anti gun. So imagine that someone buys into the anti argument but maybe works/lives in a dangerous area and the want something to protect themselves. They learn that they need to apply for an FID (I know that this has since changed) to buy pepper spray. SO you need a gun license for pepper spray. There is an application and fee and wait time so they decide to go another route. "Hey what about carrying one of those collapsible batons?" they think. Nope illegal to carry outside the home. Knife? If it's over a certain size that's a no go too. So you're back to the FID but why apply for an FID just apply for a class A and be done with it.

So Ma doesn't like guns but doesn't like less than lethal more.
Click to expand...

MA wants its subjects to be totally beholden to the government for its protection. Why would they want them to have anything that could defend themselves?

"In Massachusetts we really try and discourage self-help" - Martha
 
The problem with the "we don't encourage self help" thing is that potentially anyone not considered a PP can obtain a class A thus allowing them to carry a lethal weapon. Now if someone has a problem with firearms there is little that they have access to. One of the articles I read summed it up as pols and judges (and other douches) seem to take the idea that these less than lethal could be used in the commission of a crime and thus are too dangerous. They don't seem to understand (as we know) that criminals don't care (and that we need to be "protected and safe or we'll hurt ourselves") and thus not allowing or promoting less than lethal might be encouraging gun ownership.

Does anyone know someone that bought a gun because they couldn't just go buy pepper spray or a stun/tazer?
 
Cero said:
The problem with the "we don't encourage self help" thing is that potentially anyone not considered a PP can obtain a class A thus allowing them to carry a lethal weapon.
Click to expand...

Not if you are a second class citizen as a resident of of the capitol or other municipality like Brookline.
 
The SJC proving they don't care about their reputation.

http://www.mass.gov/courts/docs/sjc/reporter-of-decisions/new-opinions/11718.pdf

MA SJC holds that a stun gun "is not the type of weapon eligible for 2A protection". Despite being briefed by Comm2A AND THE state to the contrary on this matter, the SJC is claiming that "dangerous and unusual" is the test. And the coup de grace is that the stun gun is too new, and therefore not around since the founding… Also, that Miller v. US (1939) protects only military arms…

But wait, there's more! "[Stun Guns] are ineffective for…hunting and shooting sports." and "The question remains whether the total ban on stun guns has a rational basis."
 
terraformer said:
The SJC proving they don't care about their reputation.

http://www.mass.gov/courts/docs/sjc/reporter-of-decisions/new-opinions/11718.pdf

MA SJC holds that a stun gun "is not the type of weapon eligible for 2A protection". Despite being briefed by Comm2A AND THE state to the contrary on this matter, the SJC is claiming that "dangerous and unusual" is the test. And the coup de grace is that the stun gun is too new, and therefore not around since the founding… Also, that Miller v. US (1939) protects only military arms…

But wait, there's more! "[Stun Guns] are ineffective for…hunting and shooting sports." and "The question remains whether the total ban on stun guns has a rational basis."
Click to expand...
Well, since 2A protects "only military arms", then explain the AWB and Green Card?
 
terraformer said:
The SJC proving they don't care about their reputation.

http://www.mass.gov/courts/docs/sjc/reporter-of-decisions/new-opinions/11718.pdf

MA SJC holds that a stun gun "is not the type of weapon eligible for 2A protection". Despite being briefed by Comm2A AND THE state to the contrary on this matter, the SJC is claiming that "dangerous and unusual" is the test. And the coup de grace is that the stun gun is too new, and therefore not around since the founding… Also, that Miller v. US (1939) protects only military arms…

But wait, there's more! "[Stun Guns] are ineffective for…hunting and shooting sports." and "The question remains whether the total ban on stun guns has a rational basis."
Click to expand...

M249s for everyone!

Woohoo!
 
I'm just a regular guy reading the ruling and it sounds desperate to me. Is that how it reads to people actually versed in the law?
 
cekim said:
Well, since 2A protects "only military arms", then explain the AWB and Green Card?
Click to expand...

I spent the time to read through the documents and the first thing that popped up in my head was how they kept comparing military weapons to legal weapons. In other words, if the military can own, then people should because that's how the second amendment is written. By that logic, the assault weapon ban would be unconstitutional because it directly mimics military weaponry.
 
VetteGirlMA said:
I spent the time to read through the documents and the first thing that popped up in my head was how they kept comparing military weapons to legal weapons. In other words, if the military can own, then people should because that's how the second amendment is written. By that logic, the assault weapon ban would be unconstitutional because it directly mimics military weaponry.
Click to expand...

They are being drama queens. The reality is we (Comm2A) made it clear that military weapons were not on the table (though Keith didn't include one thing I wanted to on grenades, and how they weren't covered and why) and why they wouldn't have been on the table. The SJC are basically making this out as poor us, look at what doth have brought on the house of elites here in MA big bad SCOTUS. Now fix this foolishness and stop this.
 
VetteGirlMA said:
I spent the time to read through the documents and the first thing that popped up in my head was how they kept comparing military weapons to legal weapons. In other words, if the military can own, then people should because that's how the second amendment is written. By that logic, the assault weapon ban would be unconstitutional because it directly mimics military weaponry.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but then they'll tell you that those are "dangerous and unusual" for civilians. Heads they win, tails you lose.
 

Similar threads

SD shooting in Chicopee, MA
Replies
1
Views
208
VTski4x4
VTski4x4
MA compliant uppers - in Mil or shipped to MA
2
Replies
30
Views
863
Lxpony
Lxpony
Turkey Hunting in MA
Replies
29
Views
570
HorizontalHunter
HorizontalHunter
Are lower 80% prohibited in MA...yet?
2
Replies
34
Views
1K
EJFudd
EJFudd
Man Posing As Food Delivery Person Stole Guns From Homes In Maynard
Replies
18
Views
545
hunt4riches
H
Back
Top Bottom