Stun Guns: Dangerous and Unusual?

bpm57

Super Anarchist
2,624
60
New Jersey
Did the Caetano case law allow Ms. Caetano and Genghis Khan freewheeling use of stun gunz?
I see you are having difficulty quoting from the Caetano decision, Joe. Could it be that the case doesn't address the topic at all, despite your claims to the contrary?

You have also gone quiet on the topic of the 1789.. or was it 1794 Bill of Rights. Does this mean you spent 30 seconds and actually looked up when the Bill of Rights was ratified?

 

jocal505

moderate, informed, ex-gunowner
14,265
299
near Seattle, Wa
I see you are having difficulty quoting from the Caetano decision, Joe. Could it be that the case doesn't address the topic at all, despite your claims to the contrary?

You have also gone quiet on the topic of the 1789.. or was it 1794 Bill of Rights. Does this mean you spent 30 seconds and actually looked up when the Bill of Rights was ratified?
No joy do I feel, on pages one, two, or three.  

THE BIG DUH, EXPLAINED: just what is the ultra benefit of this Caetano decision, with stun guns confined to the home? For the kids, or what?

@Plenipotentiary Tom
 

Get Ms. Caetano, who is living in her car, to quote the skookum bits for you. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
62,076
1,885
Punta Gorda FL
interesting
Not the word I'd choose. Absurd would be better. Scalia used "frivolous" in the Heller opinion.

Try to imagine that standard being applied to a right that you like instead of one you want to eliminate.

Sure, you can have an abortion, but since the 4th amendment was written in the 18th century, you have to use 18th century technology.

Sure, you have a right to speak but if you want to publi$h $peech you're going to have to get an 18th century printing press.

It would never be tolerated in the context of any other right and is only tolerated and promoted in the second amendment area as a way to eliminate the right.

 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
62,076
1,885
Punta Gorda FL
And, of course, flint lock muskets are much more useful in the hands of a well regulated milita as opposed to having them mounted to the hardpoints of an F-16. I mean, how is the pilot supposed to fly the aircraft AND handle six powder horns?

[Add purple as needed ... ]
Not needed. A ridiculous argument might need the font change, but that's an argument that actually won in a state supreme court.

 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
62,076
1,885
Punta Gorda FL
Scalia assumed that dangerous and unusual was bad, and he opined that battle weapons were dangerous and unusual. He did a segue, going to M-16;s and the like, and presto, Heller indicates they (battle gunz and M-16's and the like) are not covered under the common use at the time blanket.
Try to keep up, Joe. The common use at the time test succeeded in the Massachusetts Supreme Court but died unanimously at the SCOTUS. The Bill of Rights applies to technology developed since the 18th century.

 

jocal505

moderate, informed, ex-gunowner
14,265
299
near Seattle, Wa
Try to keep up, Joe. The common use at the time test succeeded in the Massachusetts Supreme Court but died unanimously at the SCOTUS. The Bill of Rights applies to technology developed since the 18th century.
Hi, Quotidian Boi, and go Caetano.

  • Do you use a handy home stun gun (the only legal type) on the grandchild?
  • Is a stun gun even legal in a homeless person's car?
  • Did Ms. Caetano take up residency in her car before, or after, Citizen's United?
  • Do you admire or envy Mr. Volokh for steering clear of racial exploitation?


 
Last edited by a moderator:

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
62,076
1,885
Punta Gorda FL
2 Oklahoma Officers Who Used Tasers More Than 50 Times on Unarmed Man Are Convicted of Murder

Late last week, an Oklahoma jury returned guilty verdicts against two former policemen who killed an unarmed man in 2019 after Tasering him more than 50 times.


Online records confirm that Brandon Dingman, 35, and Joshua Taylor, 27, were convicted Friday of second-degree murder as well as assault and battery with a dangerous weapon.

...


Prosecutors argued in court documents that Tasering someone 53 times "greatly exceeded what would have been necessary or warranted by the attendant circumstances."
Body camera footage from the incident shows Lakey never tried to hurt the officers and was not acting aggressively toward them.

...

So stun guns in the hands of idiots are dangerous weapons, but still not dangerous AND unusual.

In the topic case, they were headed toward the Supreme Court with the argument that stun guns are dangerous and unusual so Caetano should have just acquired and used a nice, safe handgun.

Knowing this would elicit laughter during oral arguments, they went instead with "but stun guns were not invented in 1789," as if we treat any protected rights that way outside the Supreme Court of Massachusetts. Glad the Supremes corrected that one before it spread to other tech and other rights.

Wrong thread for it, but I'm still a fan of body cameras.




 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
62,076
1,885
Punta Gorda FL
An article about the current indoor militias case being considered by SCOTUS touches on the thread topic case about whether the Bill of Rights applies to modern technology.
 

...

“Trying to decide whether a modern taser law is sufficiently similar to historical laws on muskets or other weapons — there’s so much subjectivity in that,” he said.

...
Funny, you never hear that objection when the fourth amendment is applied to modern surveillance technology, nor when the first amendment is applied to modern communications technology.

 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
62,076
1,885
Punta Gorda FL
Would a .22 be considered a weapon of war at the time the Constitution was written?
The Supreme Court of Massachusetts said no, and for that reason the second amendment didn't cover things like stun guns and battlefield .22's.

SCOTUS reversed that decision.

Which Supreme Court do you think got that one right? Does the Bill of Rights apply to modern tech or just stuff that was around when it was written?

 

benwynn

Super Anarchist
25,275
2,284
Would a .22 be considered a weapon of war at the time the Constitution was written?


The Supreme Court of Massachusetts said no, and for that reason the second amendment didn't cover things like stun guns and battlefield .22's.

SCOTUS reversed that decision.

Which Supreme Court do you think got that one right? Does the Bill of Rights apply to modern tech or just stuff that was around when it was written?


While I appreciate the Supreme Court of Massachusetts somehow going back in time, I was looking for your opinion. If one were to hand a semi auto .22 to one of colonists during the Revolutionary War, would it be considered a weapon of war? 

 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
62,076
1,885
Punta Gorda FL
While I appreciate the Supreme Court of Massachusetts somehow going back in time, I was looking for your opinion. If one were to hand a semi auto .22 to one of colonists during the Revolutionary War, would it be considered a weapon of war? 
Depends. Adjustable stock or not? That's the modern difference, so I assume it would have been true back then too.

 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
62,076
1,885
Punta Gorda FL
While I appreciate the Supreme Court of Massachusetts somehow going back in time
That doesn't really answer my question and your latest post adds to the confusion. Let's try again.

Which Supreme Court do you think got the question of whether the Bill of Rights applies to post-18th century technology right? Massachusetts or SCOTUS?

I think the US Supremes got that one right. You "appreciate" the other side but do you really believe they got the question right? Does the Bill of Rights apply to modern tech or just stuff that was around when it was written?

 

benwynn

Super Anarchist
25,275
2,284
That doesn't really answer my question and your latest post adds to the confusion. Let's try again.

Which Supreme Court do you think got the question of whether the Bill of Rights applies to post-18th century technology right? Massachusetts or SCOTUS?

I think the US Supremes got that one right. You "appreciate" the other side but do you really believe they got the question right? Does the Bill of Rights apply to modern tech or just stuff that was around when it was written?
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the 2nd Amendment applies to modern tech.

 




Top