Mass Supreme Court strikes down stun gun ban

Rack&Roll said:

Great job, Wolfie!

Click to expand...

Having received guidance from the Supreme Court in Caetano II, we now conclude that stun guns are "arms" within the protection of the Second Amendment. Therefore, under the Second Amendment, the possession of stun guns may be regulated, but not absolutely banned. Restrictions may be placed on the categories of persons who may possess them, licenses may be required for their possession, and those licensed to possess them may be barred from carrying them in sensitive places, such as schools and government buildings. But the absolute prohibition in § 131J that bars all civilians from possessing or carrying stun guns, even in their home, is inconsistent with the Second Amendment and is therefore unconstitutional.

Click to expand...

Knuckle Dragger said:

Don't get too excited. The SJC held their collective noses and wrote the opinion that they knew they had to write. They don't agree with it, they just couldn't find another way to uphold the law and not invite another per curiam GVR from SCOTUS. By their own admission, the SJC 'reluctantly' came to this decision and they went out of their way to write a highly prejudicial opinion cataloging all the horribles that will come from legalizing stun guns.

This is a farce. The Legislature is already working on a new way to effectively ban or highly restricted EDWs and the SJC has encouraged them to do so. I expect that there will continue to be litigation opportunities on stun guns after the legislature acts.

The opinion doesn't add anything to 2A precedent because the SJC's only justification for the ruling was 'SCOTUS made us do it'.

Note that the lawyer here also argued Caetano.

Click to expand...

danb said:

Judges dont have to like the law, just enforce it.

"SCOTUS made us do it" is really as good as it gets, and I will take it.

I don't agree that it doesn't add anything to 2A precedent, they concluded bans are not constitutional. This can be applied to any gun ban. Insert your favorite weapon into their analysis.

Click to expand...

wolfwood said:

Mass Supreme Court strike down stun gun ban. Opinion is attached.
Last place in the country with a stun gun ban that has not been challenged in court is Rhode Island. I don't know anybody in Rhode Island. Anyone know potential plaintiffs? BTW this is not one of my cases it is a criminal case out of Mass.
I am currently in NY and Hawaii for taser stuff

http://reason.com/volokh/2018/04/17/massachusetts-high-court-strikes-down-st#comment_7228635

Click to expand...

frogman68 said:

want to know what stun guns existed when the 2nd Amendment was written, the left likes to think the 2nd only applies to weapons of the day

Click to expand...

esqappellate said:

Wow. They can be taught!

Click to expand...

frogman68 said:

want to know what stun guns existed when the 2nd Amendment was written, the left likes to think the 2nd only applies to weapons of the day

Click to expand...

Knuckle Dragger said:

Don't be too impressed with the SJC. By their own admission, they've come to this decision 'reluctantly'. Their opinion is highly prejudicial and all but categorizes EDW as deadly weapons.

The current redraft of the stun gun ban was underway the week before this decision was released (coincidence???) and will make it incredibly difficult or even impossible for most Massachusetts residents to legally purchase or possess Tasers or stun guns - e.g. "(g) A device or weapon sold under this section shall include a mechanism for tracking the number of times the device or weapon has been fired."

https://willbrownsberger.com/stun-gun-ban-revisited/

Click to expand...