Sign in to follow this  
Importunate Tom

Stun Guns: Dangerous and Unusual?

Recommended Posts

21 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

Tom, you said you don't promote moar guns. Is this not a thread to promote moar stun guns?

I told you last month that I didn't know whether or not Moar Inc even offers stun guns.

This thread is to talk about whether the second amendment covers weapons that did not exist in 1789. Turns out, it does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

I told you last month that I didn't know whether or not Moar Inc even offers stun guns.

This thread is to talk about whether the second amendment covers weapons that did not exist in 1789. Turns out, it does.

Well, prance around a bit. Did the Caetano decision extend to the out of doors? Did it extend to AW's?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mother Jones Lying About The Second Amendment
 

Quote

 

Mother Jones: Tell me what we know about Judge Kavanaugh’s position on gun rights.

Avery Gardiner: What we know about his stances is through the opinions he’s issued on assault weapons. A challenge to DC’s ban on assault weapons went before him and two other judges—all three were [appointed by] Republicans. The panel split 2-1 to uphold the law, with Judge Kavanaugh as the dissenter. He thinks assault weapons are within the scope of the Second Amendment, which puts him way out of step with the Supreme Court and circuit courts that have considered this issue. [The Second Amendment] protects the kinds of weapons that were “in common use at the time”—in 1791, when the Second Amendment was adopted. Those are [former Supreme Court Justice Antonin] Scalia’s words. Judge Kavanaugh just uses the first part of that phrase, “in common use” and leaves out the “at the time” part.

 

I can't believe an argument that stupid made it all the way to the Supreme Court, but it did, and it was unanimously rejected.

The Bill of Rights applies to technology developed since 1789. Not just parts of the Bill of Rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/4/2018 at 7:30 PM, Uncooperative Tom said:

Chinese Laser Rifle

Soon to be part of the ordinary military equipment. Possibly dangerous and unusual and unsuited to use by The People in militia applications.

And speaking of other weapons that weren't anywhere to be found in 1789, It's still basically a wimpy and expensive BB gun, but there's a Gauss Gun now
 

Quote

 

Arcflash Labs, a partnership between [David Wirth] and [Jason Murray], have put their EMG-01A Gauss gun up for sale for anyone who’s brave enough and willing to put down $1,000 USD on what’s essentially a high-tech BB gun. The creators claim it obtains an efficiency of 6.5% out of its RC-style 6S LiPo battery pack, which allows it to fire over 100 rounds before needing to be recharged. Firing 4.6g steel projectiles at a rather leisurely 45 m/s, this futuristic weapon would be more of a match for tin cans than invading alien forces, but at least you’ll be blasting those cans from a position of supreme technical superiority.

...

who can actually buy one of these things? The Arcflash Labs site makes it clear they will only ship to the United States, and further gives a list of states and cities were they can’t send a completed gun. Essentially they are following the same laws and guidelines used for shipping air guns within the US, as they believe that’s a fair classification for their electromagnetic guns. Whether or not the ATF feels the same way is unclear, and it should be interesting to see what kind of legal response there may be if Arcflash Labs starts moving enough units.

If you’d like to wage warfare on your recyclables without spending quite so much cash, you can always build your own for less. Or nearly nothing, if you want to go the full MacGyver route.

 

Like 3D printed guns, the current state of the technology is that they're really just geeks seeing what they can do with new tech. Or other harmless types like, you know, Chinese soldiers.

But these kinds of things will start to present questions that matter to more than a few geeks (and nutz) as technology is developed.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back in 2003, some Uncooperative type complained to the State of NY that their ban on two sticks joined by a piece of string was unconstitutional.

He was a bit premature, but did finally win a few days ago.

This footnote in the decision was funny to me:

Quote

Inexplicably, Defendant states that “[o]bviously, spring-guns and carrying/using mace or stun guns are not constitutionally protected activities” because they are dangerous. (Dkt. 213, at 2.) This statement is plainly incorrect, at least as to stun guns and mace.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, B.J. Porter said:
11 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

Did I mention RBG? anywhere in this thread?

Tom's focus is on Ginsburg - he hates her type because she has ideas about common sense gun laws that he doesn't care for.

Well, no, I didn't mention Ginsburg's views on TeamD gun bans and confiscation programs in the thread where you posted that and haven't ever said I hate her.

Besides, she was part of the unanimous decision in the Caetano case, so it's not clear to me that she supports all TeamD gungrabby nonsense at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NY Stun Gun Ban Unconstitutional

Quote

“New York’s sweeping prohibition on the possession and use of tasers and stun guns by all citizens for all purposes, even for self-defense in one’s own home, must be declared unconstitutional,” Hurd wrote in his decision.

 

And a lot closer to home, I saw my neighbor loading up the swamp buggy over the weekend, headed to the Redneck Yacht Club.

This happened a few dozen feet from them.
 

Quote

 

According to the CCSO website, a fight broke out near the main stage of the park 11 p.m. Saturday. Private security initially responded to the fight.

The man involved in the fight was treated for injured by EMS responders and was taken to a nearby hospital, where he was pronounced dead.

 

My neighbor said he was hit with a Taser and "flatlined" during EMS treatment on scene.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stun Gun Summary

Quote

[1.] New York was one of the few states that banned all private possession of stun guns; Friday's decision by U.S. District Court Judge David N. Hurd in Avitabile v. Beach held this was unconstitutional. Illinois banned carrying stun guns on one's person in public places.

[2.] The Illinois Supreme Court had earlier held that the Second Amendment secures a right to carry guns (a matter on which courts are split), and on Thursday it held in People v. Webb that the Second Amendment likewise secures a right to carry stun guns. The logic of this opinion would also invalidate, I think, the bans on irritant sprays (such as pepper spray and mace) in some Illinois towns (see pp. 246-47 of this article).

[3.] By my count, this means that, since D.C. v. Heller, stun gun bans have been invalidated or repealed in Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Wisconsin, D.C., the Virgin Islands, Overland Park (Kansas), and Annapolis, Baltimore, New Orleans, Philadelphia, Tacoma, and in four Maryland counties (Anne Arundel County, Baltimore County, Harford County, and Howard County).

Stun gun bans remain in effect, to my knowledge, in Hawaii, Rhode Island, and Wilmington (Delaware), plus some smaller towns. The Hawaii law is being challenged in court, and I'm told that it is headed for legislative repeal. Stun guns are also heavily regulated (e.g., with total bans on carrying in most places outside the home) in Connecticut and in some cities. For more, see this article, though the listing of restrictions in Appendix II is now out-of-date.

I'm glad to learn that Hawaii is going for legislative repeal. I see no reason to ban them in the first place.

My neighbor said that the guy who died over the weekend was hit with a Taser, had a heart attack, and died. He was there, but didn't actually see all of that and eyewitnesses get stuff wrong. Based on other things he said, contributing factors in the death were VERY likely to be alcohol and other drugs.

So maybe Tasers can be lethal some of the time. So can other ways of controlling a 27 year old intoxicated redneck, and out of all the ways, stun guns seem to me one of the best.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Fakenews said:

Totally, just not with a gun, knife, or flame thrower. No machetes, lead pipes, brass knuckles, num chucks or police batons either.  Cell phones and mace are acceptable.

Thread solved..


Mace is like stun guns. It's sometimes dangerous and unusual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Fakenews said:

Just not with guns, machetes, brass knuckles, flame throwers, swords, KBAR’s, Tazer’s etc. 

Hundreds of millions of Americans manage just fine without these instruments of death every day.  Don’t be so terrified an humorless. 


I'm glad a unanimous Supreme Court disagreed on the stun guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Without the Bill of Rights, without a culture of more openness and more opportunity, without a melting pot, it's not America. Period. Get rid of those, get rid of rule of law much less the Constitution, and it's not America. That's the direction the Trumpublican Party is going, with both feet jammed on the gas pedal and a sneer for anybody who doesn't like it.

As I said elsewhere, -IF- given years in power and amoral leadership, I have no doubt the Democrats would do the same, but for right now, they're not.


I have no doubts that TeamD would take a case to the Supreme Court on the basis that

Quote

There can be no doubt that a stun gun was not in common use at the time of (the second amendment's) enactment. ... the invention of this weapon (in 1972) clearly post dates the period relevant to our analysis.

Possibly because they did. I don't think "it was invented in the 20th century" is a good reason to exclude any technology from coverage by any part of the Bill of Rights. Yes, even that part.

I have no doubts that isn't the only completely ridiculous attack on the Bill of Rights by TeamD.

That would be because of this question, which the Supreme Court will address this fall:

On 1/24/2019 at 5:30 AM, Importunate Tom said:

The Cert Petition
 

Quote

 

The question presented is:

Whether the City’s ban on transporting a licensed, locked, and unloaded handgun to a home or shooting range outside city limits is consistent with the Second Amendment, the Commerce Clause, and the constitutional right to travel.

 

Not presented to the court, but still worth wondering about: why are hoplophobes so darn fearful that they can't tolerate a licensed, locked, and unloaded gun being carried outside city limits?


Without the Bill of Rights, without a culture of more openness and more opportunity, without a melting pot, it's not America. Period. Get rid of those, get rid of rule of law much less the Constitution, and it's not America. That's the direction TeamD is going, with both feet jammed on the gas pedal and a sneer and some name-calling for anybody who doesn't like it.

IF- given years in power and amoral leadership, I have no doubt Trump has done the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/22/2016 at 6:40 AM, Importunate Tom said:

This article comments on the concurring opinion by Alito, joined by Thomas.

 

Quote

No member of the Supreme Court dissented from today's per curiam opinion in Caetano v. Massachusetts. However, Justice Sameuel Alito, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, wrote a separate concurring opinion in which he left little doubt that if it were up to him (and Thomas), the state's actions would have been ruled flatly unconstitutional.

 

"The Commonwealth of Massachusetts was either unable or unwilling to do what was necessary to protect Jaime Caetano, so she was forced to protect herself," Alito wrote. "To make matters worse, the Commonwealth chose to deploy its prosecutorial resources to prosecute and convict her of a criminal offense for arming herself with a nonlethal weapon that may well have saved her life. The Supreme Judicial Court then affirmed her conviction on the flimsiest of grounds." According to Alito, "if the fundamental right of self-defense does not protect Caetano, then the safety of all Americans is left to the mercy of state authorities who may be more concerned about disarming people than about keeping them safe."

 

 

Alito is right and the bolded bit is the explanation for a situation that the Slate article author found "inexplicable."

 

I guess joining Alito demostrates Justice Thomas' hostility toward women. :rolleyes:

Hey, it was Her Body and Her Choice to use a non-lethal means of defending her body.

Oh, wait. That mantra isn't for this issue, is it?

Better to fight her all the way to the Supreme Court based on the idea that the Bill of Rights doesn't cover technology invented since it was written.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/16/2019 at 3:31 AM, Importunate Tom said:
On 4/15/2019 at 1:44 PM, Fakenews said:

Totally, just not with a gun, knife, or flame thrower. No machetes, lead pipes, brass knuckles, num chucks or police batons either.  Cell phones and mace are acceptable.

Thread solved..


Mace is like stun guns. It's sometimes dangerous and unusual.

numbnutz chucks are OK in Arizona now
 

Quote

 

Arizona's Republican Governor Doug Ducey signed a bill on Friday to remove nunchucks from the state's list of deadly weapons.

The deadly weapons list is intended for items that are specifically "designed for lethal use."

...

"It's good to know that nobody's going to get arrested for carrying their nunchucks to their training,"  Shawn Sample, a karate instructor in Phoenix, told AZfamily. Sample also observed that the ban made little sense in a state where open-carry of firearms is legal. 

Whether the Second Amendment protects nunchuck ownership is a hot question right now. In December 2018, the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in New York overturned the state's 44-year-old nunchuck ban, citing D.C. v. Heller, which affirmed an individual's right to possess a weapon that was both "common use" and "typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes."

 

Every time I read about two sticks and a string, it's spelled a bit differently. Maybe it's time to learn the Chinese symbols for these things.

Anyway, they're OK because they're not designed for lethal use, same as an openly carried handgun.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

13 posts in a row all to yourself..........is that a new record? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/17/2018 at 5:21 AM, Importunate Tom said:

Back in 2003, some Uncooperative type complained to the State of NY that their ban on two sticks joined by a piece of string was unconstitutional.

He was a bit premature, but did finally win a few days ago.

This footnote in the decision was funny to me:

Quote

Inexplicably, Defendant states that “[o]bviously, spring-guns and carrying/using mace or stun guns are not constitutionally protected activities” because they are dangerous. (Dkt. 213, at 2.) This statement is plainly incorrect, at least as to stun guns and mace.

 

Article about that case:

Nunchaku Are Protected by the Second Amendment
 

Quote

 

While the logical implication of the two criteria identified in Heller—"common use" and "typical possession by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes"—is that the government need only disprove the existence of one or the other criterion to exempt the challenged law from Second Amendment coverage, the Court has concluded that the "common use" factor is ultimately irrelevant and that the government must show that, at a minimum, nunchakus are not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes. See Caetano v. Massachusetts (stating that the test for whether a weapon falls within the scope of the Second Amendment is "a conjunctive test: A weapon may not be banned unless it is both dangerous and unusual.") (Alito, J., concurring)…

Here, "the parties do not dispute that nunchakus constitute a 'bearable arm,'" and so the rebuttable presumption that nunchakus are protected by the Second Amendment applies. …

[B.] The next step … that the Court must determine whether the nunchaku ban impinges upon conduct protected by the Second Amendment, i.e., whether Defendant has proved, by clear and convincing evidence, that nunchakus are not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes. Admittedly, there is no defined analytical standard for what constitutes "typical possession by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes." However, … the Second Circuit [has] indicated that to determine a weapon's "typical possession," the Court is "require[d] … to look into both broad patterns of use and the subjective motives of [the weapon's] owners."

Considering the scant evidence presented, the Court finds that Defendant has not met her burden to exclude nunchaku from the ambit of Second Amendment protection. Simply put, Defendant does not contradict the contention that the nunchaku's primary use, which Defendant concedes is as "a tool from the sphere of martial arts," is a lawful one….

 

With apologies for another on-topic post, of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, mad said:

13 posts in a row all to yourself..........is that a new record? 

No I interrupted a thread with 20 posts in a row. Ishmael was pissed. Speculation is he can hit 100 posts if we let him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Fakenews said:
2 hours ago, mad said:

13 posts in a row all to yourself..........is that a new record? 

No I interrupted a thread with 20 posts in a row. Ishmael was pissed. Speculation is he can hit 100 posts if we let him.

Bull Gator has got your back, mad.

(Might want to check it for butter.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When is a stun gun dangerous?

When you grab your handgun instead
 

Quote

 

A suburban St. Louis police officer who says she meant to use her stun gun but mistakenly grabbed her service revolver was indicted on a second-degree assault charge Wednesday for shooting a suspected shoplifter outside a grocery store.

...

The shooting is among at least 13 since 2001 in which officers said they mixed up their guns and stun guns, University of Missouri-St. Louis criminologist David Klinger said. He noted that police officers typically train by drawing their gun, not their stun gun, and that becomes habit.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/18/2019 at 4:32 PM, Sean said:

IMG_4922.JPG


A stun gun would work too, where allowed.

(Just assuming that Caetano's abusive ex was TeamR since they're the only ones who abuse women.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, jocal505 said:
On 6/30/2019 at 6:52 AM, Importunate Tom said:
Quote

lf-defense—inside or outside the home.

Umm... Jaime Caetano was HOMELESS when she made the CHOICE to defend HER BODY.

Pooplius wants to homeless to have stun guns, after the Libertarians put them on the streets.

I do agree with the unanimous Supreme Court decision on this subject. Not sure where you got the ludicrous notion that my elk put her on the streets, but homeless people do have rights. Yes, even that right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Importunate Tom said:

Not sure where you got the ludicrous notion that my elk put her on the streets

Citizen's United, baby. Wow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this