|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
May 28, 2019, 12:40 PM | #1 | |||||
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,821
|
Avitable v. Beach, 368 F.Supp.3d 404 (N.D.N.Y, 2019)
I have automated searches that run once a week on Westlaw, looking for firearms-related cases. Most of the time, they turn up rather vanilla firearms cases, such as felons in possession. This week, though, something interesting came up: Avitable v. Beach, cited above. I'll have to read it thoroughly and digest it, but from what I can see: (1) the conclusion that NY's ban on stun guns and tasers is unconstitutional is good for us; but (2) the NDNY applies this intermediate scrutiny two-step that we've seen; and (3) even after concluding that the ban is unconstitutional, the judge goes so far as to suggest to the legislature that it should impose some restrictions on carry and possession of stun guns and tasers.
Some tidbits: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
|||||
May 28, 2019, 01:32 PM | #2 | ||
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,458
|
To borrow a phrase from the anti-gun activists, "It's a good first step." I liked two points that you cited:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
May 29, 2019, 12:57 AM | #3 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 7, 2000
Location: AZ, WA
Posts: 1,466
|
Quote:
__________________
Violence is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and valorous feeling which believes that nothing is worth violence is much worse. Those who have nothing for which they are willing to fight; nothing they care about more than their own craven apathy; are miserable creatures who have no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the valor of those better than themselves. Gary L. Griffiths (Paraphrasing John Stuart Mill) |
|
May 30, 2019, 04:42 PM | #4 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 19, 2016
Posts: 186
|
Is the court saying that stun guns are protected but that does not mean they cannot be banned, but if you are going to ban them you have to do a better job on your homework so as to justify the fit to meet an important state goal?
|
May 30, 2019, 05:47 PM | #5 | ||
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,458
|
Quote:
Quote:
{Edit to add} Prediction: New York will seize on the reference to "even for self-defense in the home," and enact a regulation that will allow possession of stun guns and/or tasers only in the home. "Because the court said that's all that the Constitution protects." So then we'll be back in court for New York vs. Stun Guns, Round II. |
||
May 30, 2019, 05:54 PM | #6 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 19, 2016
Posts: 186
|
One man's regulation is another man's ban, but you point is well made.
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|