Taser Lawsuit Filed in New Jersey

wolfwood · Feb 28, 2017

Bikebreath said:
Ya! Nothing to it. I'd do it again for this cause, but in my reply to the MSI email I explained I was involved in the Taser case. I assume it disqualifies me.

I don't see why that would. Email esqappellate he can decide whether you fit what we need

esqappellate · Feb 28, 2017

Bikebreath said:
Ya! Nothing to it. I'd do it again for this cause, but in my reply to the MSI email I explained I was involved in the Taser case. I assume it disqualifies me.

I don't recall seeing that email. Can you send it again?

Bikebreath · Feb 28, 2017

esqappellate said:
I don't recall seeing that email. Can you send it again?

Just sent.

It's from dougbike@yahoo.com

esqappellate · Mar 2, 2017

Bikebreath said:
Just sent.

It's from dougbike@yahoo.com

I'll get back to you

zenMonkey · Mar 3, 2017

wolfwood said:
I am not getting paid for these cases unless I win and getting local counsel is actually really hard. Even if I do win and get paid it is not a lot of money. For every hour I could ever bill to the Court I am calling dozens of lawyer and potenial clients trying to sell them on working with a lawyer they often times have never met. am not going to bend over backwards trying to find a lawyer when the local 2a lawyers group told me to pound sand.

So far I've convinced our local counsel simply to take a percentage if we do get attorney fees but in Delaware all the pro 2a lawyers are part of the same club. I would have had to pay a local lawyer up front out of my own pocket to file a case there.

Hey, we're all on the same team right? Oh wait...

Unbelievable.

wolfwood · Mar 6, 2017

The County filed its response to the PI today.
The State of New York has a response due as well by the 7th.

danb · Mar 6, 2017

wolfwood said:
The County filed its response to the PI today.
The State of New York has a response due as well by the 7th.

First you have to try to violate the law. Then we will see if it's constitutional.

wolfwood · Mar 7, 2017

New York filed its response
Everytown is filing a brief later

GlocksAndPatriots · Mar 7, 2017

wolfwood said:
New York filed its response
Everytown is filing a brief later

Ahh yes, more of the Heller dissent "two-step" test. If the new court with Gorsuch doesn't take a case soon, this negative precedent will basically be permanent.

press1280 · Mar 7, 2017

wolfwood said:
New York filed its response
Everytown is filing a brief later

Once again, they think Heller is limited to its bare facts and "arms" consist of nothing more than handguns, rifles (not AW), and shotguns.

danb · Mar 7, 2017

:smh:

Technically, the brief is correct: The Supreme Court did not say the ban was unconstitutional, the court merely rejected all the best reasons it might be unconstitutional then remanded... reasons which NY then repeats to justify the ban. But hey maybe this time, right?

GlocksAndPatriots · Mar 8, 2017

danb said:
:smh:

Technically, the brief is correct: The Supreme Court did not say the ban was unconstitutional, the court merely rejected all the best reasons it might be unconstitutional then remanded... reasons which NY then repeats to justify the ban. But hey maybe this time, right?

Right, and with the precedent from Kachalsky, City of San Francisco, Woollard, Drake, and Kolbe, all a state needs to do to justify ANY restriction on ANY weapon is claim that the legislature reasonably weighed the evidence and decided it would further public safety. That's it. They don't need to show that the evidence upon which they relied was reliable or that their "weighing" of the evidence was reasonable. With the rational basis scrutiny dressed up as intermediate they've been peddling, that's all that the courts require.

wolfwood · Mar 9, 2017

Everytown amicus brief

GlocksAndPatriots · Mar 9, 2017

wolfwood said:
Everytown amicus brief

Love it. Gun laws should not be subjected to strict scrutiny because we know there's no real evidence that they work.

Boss94 · Mar 25, 2017

20 year old daughter is heading to Baltimore city today. She wants to carry her tazer or mace for obvious reasons. Can she legally do so? I read this and still confused with the Baltimore outcome?

Bikebreath · Mar 25, 2017

Mace is fine to carry.

I "think" the law isn't being enforced on Tazers, or stun guns, but that puts it in a gray area.

IANAL

If she is with a group, then all should stay together.

wolfwood · Apr 10, 2017

we are wrapping up this taser business nationwide. I suspect the only place we need to actually sue is Rhode Island. This article is from Westminster the last place with a taser ban in maryland.

esqappellate · Apr 10, 2017

wolfwood said:
we are wrapping up this taser business nationwide. I suspect the only place we need to actually sue is Rhode Island. This article is from Westminster the last place with a taser ban in maryland.

Question: Does Ocean City have a Taser Ban?

wolfwood · Apr 10, 2017

esqappellate said:
Question: Does Ocean City have a Taser Ban?

Not to my knowledge.

adit · Apr 10, 2017

wolfwood said:
Not to my knowledge.

It looks like they do.

https://www.municode.com/library/md...IPR_ARTIIIOFINPUSA_DIV4ELWE_S58-162SAPOELWEPR

DIVISION 4. - ELECTRONIC WEAPONS

Sec. 58-161. - Definition.
Electronic weapon: Any instrument, stun-gun or any similar device by whatever name, which is designed as a weapon, or any other device capable of, or designed to be capable of, temporarily inflicting pain or incapacitating another by the discharge of electrical current through projectile or non-projectile means.

(Ord. No. 2009-14, 7-6-2009)

Sec. 58-162. - Sale or possession of electronic weapons prohibited.
(a)
Prohibitions.
(1)
It shall be unlawful for any person, firm, corporation or other entity to sell give away, lend, rent or transfer to any individual, firm, corporation or other entity, an electronic weapon within the limits of Ocean City. It further shall be unlawful for any person to possess, fire, discharge or activate any electronic weapon within the limits of Ocean City.
a.
Exceptions. Subsection (a) of this section shall not apply to:
(i)
A public safety officer acting within the scope of the officer's official duties; or
(ii)
A homeowner possessing same in the confines of the home. As used herein homeowner means the owner or tenant, spouse and relatives, over the age of 18 residing therein. Homeowner does not include tenants or guests residing or staying for periods less than one year.
(iii)
A person in lawful possession of a State of Maryland concealed weapon permit.
(iv)
The sale, rental or transfer of an electronic weapon to a department, office, or agency of Ocean City.
(2)
It shall be unlawful to possess an electronic weapon during the commission of a crime.
(Ord. No. 2009-14, 7-6-2009)

Sec. 58-163. - Violations and penalties.
Any person or entity who shall violate any of the provisions of this subtitle shall, upon conviction thereof, be convicted of a misdemeanor and be punished by a fine not to exceed $1,000.00 or imprisonment not to exceed six months in jail, or both. In addition to such penalties, the Mayor and City Council of Ocean City shall have the right to pursue all other legal and equitable remedies in the appropriate courts.

(Ord. No. 2009-14, 7-6-2009)

Taser Lawsuit Filed in New Jersey

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Ultimate Member

President, MSI

R.I.P.

President, MSI

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Attachments

dont be a dumbass

Ultimate Member

Attachments

Banned

Ultimate Member

dont be a dumbass

Banned

Ultimate Member

Attachments

Banned

Ultimate Member

R.I.P.

Ultimate Member

Attachments

President, MSI

Ultimate Member

ReMember

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics