|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
March 21, 2016, 03:51 PM | #1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 7, 2000
Location: AZ, WA
Posts: 1,466
|
Supreme Court REPUDIATES Massachussetts stun gun ban 8-0
Read all about it: Follow link then click on 3/21/16 - Caetano v. Massachusetts on right side of page
http://www.supremecourt.gov/ A couple of interesting points. It pretty much dismisses arguments that the 2nd Amendment applies only to late 18th Century arms. It also concerns carrying arms outside the home. It seems even the liberal justices react negatively to lower courts simply ignoring their rulings!
__________________
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) Last edited by Gary L. Griffiths; March 21, 2016 at 04:11 PM. |
March 21, 2016, 03:53 PM | #2 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,468
|
Link doesn't work for me.
[Edit]Found one that does: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...utm_medium=RSS Wow! Quote:
Did y'all know that Massachusetts also bans private ownership of pepper spray? And that the Massachusetts state constitution, of all places, uses a collective rights version of the RKBA? Last edited by Aguila Blanca; March 21, 2016 at 03:59 PM. |
|
March 21, 2016, 04:44 PM | #3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,903
|
A direct link to the ruling: Jaime Caetano v. Massachusetts, 14-10078.
|
March 21, 2016, 04:49 PM | #4 |
Member
Join Date: January 31, 2016
Location: Zephyrhills,Fl
Posts: 78
|
Wonder what effect this will have on the Maryland appeals case involving assault style weapons? Seems to kick that decision right in the shins.
|
March 21, 2016, 05:05 PM | #5 | ||
Junior member
Join Date: May 16, 2008
Posts: 9,995
|
Quote:
There are very few circles where a female utilizing a weapon to defend herself from a man is not acceptable. Quote:
|
||
March 21, 2016, 05:10 PM | #6 | ||
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,821
|
Alito and Thomas were clearly unhappy at having Heller and McDonald so thoroughly ignored by the SJC. It's just so hard to pick a favorite passage yet, but I have to say that I really like this one:
Quote:
I also like this one: Quote:
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
||
March 21, 2016, 05:30 PM | #7 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 7, 2000
Location: AZ, WA
Posts: 1,466
|
Kinda like how this case put the rather liberal female justices between a rock and a hard place. While they probably were lukewarm at best to extending 2nd Amendment rights, they didn't wish to deny a female stalking/assault victim her right to self-defense. Ultimately, will make it more difficult for them to articulate how carrying firearms for self-defense is not Constitutionally protected.
__________________
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) |
March 21, 2016, 08:12 PM | #8 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,468
|
Quote:
|
|
March 21, 2016, 09:03 PM | #9 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 13, 2009
Location: NJ
Posts: 1,254
|
See now I have to wonder how this will effect states like new jersey that outright bans stun guns?
|
March 21, 2016, 09:47 PM | #10 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 7, 2000
Location: AZ, WA
Posts: 1,466
|
Quote:
It will probably die a quiet death, unlamented by the gun community.
__________________
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) |
|
March 22, 2016, 08:58 AM | #11 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 13, 2009
Location: NJ
Posts: 1,254
|
The sad thing is NJ will continue to prosecute anyone they find who owns a stun gun and make them go through the hassle of multiple court cases.
|
March 22, 2016, 10:42 AM | #12 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 7,523
|
Nobody has yet brought up another very significant part of this ruling (my emphasis underlined).
Quote:
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak |
|
March 22, 2016, 11:05 AM | #13 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 23, 2009
Posts: 3,963
|
I could be wrong, but I can easily see the liberal women on the court squirming for a way to dissent on this ruling, then giving up once they found they were between a political rock and a legal hard place.
Listen for something like this : Of course, the SCOTUS is still wrong on the 2nd Amendment, and such clearly and erroneously political rulings such as this one can only be addressed by ensuring the next two or three Justices nominated to the Court are liberals. They had no business linking a common-sense ruling in favor of women's rights to the fight against weapons of war on our streets. If you like spin, you can keep your spin. |
March 22, 2016, 12:25 PM | #14 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,454
|
I would like to know why Roberts' name isn't on the concurring opinion.
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
March 22, 2016, 03:21 PM | #15 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 8, 2016
Posts: 167
|
Wow. If I read that opinion correctly, it basically says that Massachusetts thinks anything more advanced than a musket loader should be banned.
Apparently, their supreme court needs to pull their heads out of their collective rear ends. |
March 22, 2016, 04:25 PM | #16 |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
Roberts was on the much terser; but similarly themed per curiam opinion. An unsigned per curiam opinion is usually a pretty brief decision confirming an uncontroversial point of law.
So it is 8-0 that as long as Heller is precedent, that the Second Amendment protects arms not in use at the time of the Founders and that it protects non-military arms as well. It is worth noting though that 3 of the Justices signing this opinion think Heller should be reversed. We can also see Alito and Thomas feel the lower courts have been disregarding the Heller and McDonald rulings and are ready to push back, even if other members of the Court haven't reached that point yet. |
March 22, 2016, 04:48 PM | #17 | |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,821
|
I have to put my tinfoil hat on and point out one other item:
Quote:
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
|
March 22, 2016, 05:16 PM | #18 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 23, 2009
Posts: 3,963
|
The wild-eyed bozos will still say no one is coming for your guns, just look at Obama, he says it all the time.
It's called distraction. Look them in the eye, lie through your teeth, and stab them in the back while smiling all the while. |
March 22, 2016, 05:43 PM | #19 | |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,821
|
Quote:
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
|
March 22, 2016, 07:43 PM | #20 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
I've read quite a few of these opinions over the years. I have to say, you will *rarely* see one where the High Court so openly and obviously excoriates the lower court.
This decision is as significant, IMO, for the tone as for the legal content. Generally the High Court sets a tone to allow the lower court to "save face", in a sense. Along the lines of "Your decision is logical perhaps but you should have looked at it this way." This time, they all but said "You can't possibly be this ignorant. We know you're doing this on purpose. Go back, and get it right this time, you fools."
__________________
Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley |
March 22, 2016, 08:15 PM | #21 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 23, 2009
Posts: 3,963
|
Spats, those drooling knuckledraggers under the tinfoil hats are the distraction. While you are thanking God you were not born that stupid, the gun takers are sneaking up behind you.
|
March 22, 2016, 08:33 PM | #22 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 13, 2009
Location: NJ
Posts: 1,254
|
Since they came out in defense of "in common use" used in Heller not being limited to handguns, where does that leave things like magazine size restrictions, some states ban flash suppressors, etc? These things are in common use, so wouldn't they fall into the same category as tasers and stun guns, and hence be protected? Or am I just dreaming?
|
March 22, 2016, 09:29 PM | #23 | |
Junior member
Join Date: May 16, 2008
Posts: 9,995
|
Quote:
|
|
March 23, 2016, 10:34 AM | #24 | ||
Staff
Join Date: October 13, 2001
Posts: 3,355
|
Quote:
A little bit of pain might not stop a victim from fighting back, but then again just the threat of an unknown weapon (most people have not tried a stun gun out on themselves) could easily convince a victim in some circumstances not to fight back, if the aggressor's demands are "reasonable" enough.
__________________
“The egg hatched...” “...the egg hatched... and a hundred baby spiders came out...” (blade runner) “Who are you?” “A friend. I'm here to prevent you from making a mistake.” “You have no idea what I'm doing here, friend.” “In specific terms, no, but I swore an oath to protect the world...” (continuum) “It's a goal you won't understand until later. Your job is to make sure he doesn't achieve the goal.” (bsg) |
||
March 23, 2016, 10:46 AM | #25 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
Quote:
It takes less than a day to write and pass a terrible law (see NY SAFE Act) and 10 years to get it through the courts and "defeat" it, only to have another one of the same effect passed and in effect 24 hours later. The biggest failure of foresight from our Founders, IMO, was not seeing the likelihood of attacks against the Republic from "the inside", using the system against itself, combined with not imagining that We The People would so thoroughly and completely lose control of our local and state government. We simply have no structure, beyond voting out the politicians who appoint the judges, for defeating these kinds of people and "we", collectively, are too ignorant and/or complacent and/or complicit to make that change.
__________________
Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley |
|
|
|