Stun Guns: Dangerous and Unusual?

Ishmael

52,207
12,070
Fuctifino
And guns that aren't guns. (arms that aren't arms?)
maxresdefault.jpg


 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
61,990
1,855
Punta Gorda FL
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the 2nd Amendment applies to modern tech.
That's good. The idea that the Bill of RIghts only applies to 18th century tech does have some supporters here.

every home in America can have a musket...


I believe in the 2nd amend. and every one should have a musket, 
I think that, just like grabbers immediately latched onto the anti-abortion power grab in TX, the anti-abortion nuts would be quick to exploit a precedent allowing them to say, "Sure, you can have an abortion, using 18th century medical tech because that's when the fourth amendment was written!"

How we treat one right affects others and these grabbers are dangerous to more than just the right they despise.

 

benwynn

Super Anarchist
25,275
2,283
I think that, just like grabbers immediately latched onto the anti-abortion power grab in TX, the anti-abortion nuts would be quick to exploit a precedent allowing them to say, "Sure, you can have an abortion, using 18th century medical tech because that's when the fourth amendment was written!"
I have not heard that argument in the 50 years since Roe v Wade.  Can you define quick?

 

d'ranger

Super Anarchist
29,197
4,299
I have not heard that argument in the 50 years since Roe v Wade.  Can you define quick?
Could we also get a detailed description of abortion in the Constitution including all appropriate amendments?  Bonus points - all Bible scriptures?

When finished not finding those how about not finding the well regulated militia phrase.  And explain when Tom says "sometimes" he means "all the times". 

Bonus Bonus: Which battlefields has his .22s been featured in.

 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
61,990
1,855
Punta Gorda FL
I have not heard that argument in the 50 years since Roe v Wade.  Can you define quick?
As quick as the gun grabbers jumping on the anti-abortion bandwagon, within hours, days at the most, of a favorable SCOTUS decision.

Possibly you haven't heard it because SCOTUS agreed with you and me, not Massachusetts and grabbers.

 

Raz'r

Super Anarchist
62,192
5,440
De Nile
As quick as the gun grabbers jumping on the anti-abortion bandwagon, within hours, days at the most, of a favorable SCOTUS decision.

Possibly you haven't heard it because SCOTUS agreed with you and me, not Massachusetts and grabbers.
I can ask again. Are devices that aren't guns, arms?
Slingshots?

shuriken?

brass knuckles?

Stun guns? (not guns, maybe they look enough like a pistol to be an arm?)

If not "arms" - then why can't they be regulated?(And, uh, btw, arms are regulated as well, just like speech)

 

benwynn

Super Anarchist
25,275
2,283
As quick as the gun grabbers jumping on the anti-abortion bandwagon, within hours, days at the most, of a favorable SCOTUS decision.

Possibly you haven't heard it because SCOTUS agreed with you and me, not Massachusetts and grabbers.
I'm going to go drink an entire bottle of cough medicine and come back and read this again. 

 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
61,990
1,855
Punta Gorda FL
I can ask again. Are devices that aren't guns, arms?
Slingshots?

shuriken?

brass knuckles?

Stun guns? (not guns, maybe they look enough like a pistol to be an arm?)
Yes, those are all arms. The topic case was about stun guns and there have been others about weapons that were not guns.

If not "arms" - then why can't they be regulated?
Did anyone say they couldn't? The subject of the thread is really whether the Bill of Rights applies to technology developed after 1789. What do you think about that question? Did SCOTUS or the Mass Supremes get it right?

 

Raz'r

Super Anarchist
62,192
5,440
De Nile
Yes, those are all arms. The topic case was about stun guns and there have been others about weapons that were not guns.

Did anyone say they couldn't? The subject of the thread is really whether the Bill of Rights applies to technology developed after 1789. What do you think about that question? Did SCOTUS or the Mass Supremes get it right?
Stun guns aren’t guns. Just sayin.

 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
61,990
1,855
Punta Gorda FL
Rhode Island Stun Gun Ban Ruled Unconstitutional
 

The case is O'Neil v. Neronha, decided today by Judge William E. Smith (D.R.I.); Judge Smith expresses his disapproval of D.C. v. Heller (pp. 9-10 n.7), but applies it to hold that the stun gun ban is unconstitutional.

...

By my count, since D.C. v. Heller stun gun bans have been invalidated or repealed in Hawaii, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, now Rhode Island, 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). The Illinois Supreme Court, which had held that the Second Amendment secures a right to carry guns (a matter on which courts are split), has also held 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).

...

Stun gun bans remain in effect, to my knowledge, in

  • New York, where a federal district court held that the state stun gun ban was unconstitutional, but a state trial court in a different case disagreed (yes, state courts can do that),
  • Wilmington (Delaware) and the county in which it is located (New Castle County),
  • plus some smaller towns.

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. New Jersey lawyer Dan Schmutter tells me that New Jersey likely also essentially bans carrying stun guns outside the home.
Lots of talk about HER BODY HER CHOICE these days, but you can still hear a pin drop when it's Caetano's Body, Caetano's Choice. Except maybe inside her home, but she can forget about outdoor choices.

 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
61,990
1,855
Punta Gorda FL
Sorry.  Not 'could'.  'Should'.  How --- if at all --- do you think we should go about reducing the killing efficiency of civilians who use guns to illegally kill others?
This should really make the rounds of all the gun issues.

One answer that won in the Massachusetts Supreme Court was to restrict the Bill of Rights to apply it only to technology invented when it was ratified. Of course, they didn't say do it to the whole Bill of Rights yet, just the second amendment, but we've seen where those kinds of precedents go. Apply it to one right and soon it applies to others.

Anyway, the US Supreme Court struck that down, deciding that restricting The People to 18th century tech was not a correct reading of the second amendment.

So one answer I'd offer is that we SHOULD go with SCOTUS and not with Massachusetts on that question. Much like my support for Obama over Trump on bump stocka, I'm all alone on this one too. But maybe I can find my first glimmer of agreement.

Which Supreme Court do you think got that one right?

 

Marty Gingras

Mid-range Anarchist
This should really make the rounds of all the gun issues.

One answer that won in the Massachusetts Supreme Court was to restrict the Bill of Rights to apply it only to technology invented when it was ratified. Of course, they didn't say do it to the whole Bill of Rights yet, just the second amendment, but we've seen where those kinds of precedents go. Apply it to one right and soon it applies to others.

Anyway, the US Supreme Court struck that down, deciding that restricting The People to 18th century tech was not a correct reading of the second amendment.

So one answer I'd offer is that we SHOULD go with SCOTUS and not with Massachusetts on that question. Much like my support for Obama over Trump on bump stocka, I'm all alone on this one too. But maybe I can find my first glimmer of agreement.

Which Supreme Court do you think got that one right?
I hear you.  I'm no lawyer, but I'm with Obama on this.  That's beside the point though.

To help me make it easy for me, let me ask you this:  Do you think we should go about reducing the killing efficiency of civilians who use guns to illegally kill others?

 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
61,990
1,855
Punta Gorda FL
Which Supreme Court do you think got that one right?
I hear you.  I'm no lawyer, but I'm with Obama on this.  That's beside the point though.
I'm an Obama guy on bump stocka.

I'm unaware of his position on the Caetano case but suspect he would be a Massachusetts fan just because all of his supporters here seem to be.

Not really beside the point at all, as it bears on the question of whether the government can restrict The People to 18th century technology in any effort to limit the effectiveness of the militia. Or the "killing efficiency of civilians" as you put it.

As to the killing efficiency of that tiny subset of civilians who commit mass murder, they're the very last people likely to be affected by any effort to reduce the effectiveness of the militia. Do I want another big, stupid dangerous prohibition program designed around the vain hope that THIS time it's going to work on THESE particular people? No, absolutely not.

Do you?

 

Ishmael

52,207
12,070
Fuctifino
I hear you.  I'm no lawyer, but I'm with Obama on this.  That's beside the point though.

To help me make it easy for me, let me ask you this:  Do you think we should go about reducing the killing efficiency of civilians who use guns to illegally kill others?
I think anyone wanting an AR15 should give up one of their arms to level the playing field a bit. 

 

Marty Gingras

Mid-range Anarchist
As to the killing efficiency of that tiny subset of civilians who commit mass murder, they're the very last people likely to be affected by any effort to reduce the effectiveness of the militia.
Pretty sure that's debatable.  

Do I want another big, stupid dangerous prohibition program designed around the vain hope that THIS time it's going to work on THESE particular people? No, absolutely not.

Do you?
My favorable 'position' on the long-expired Federal assault weapons ban was knee-jerk.  From my perspective since paying more attention, it wasn't stupid or dangerous.  I've seen conflicting seemingly-rigorous analyses about its impact. 

My interest in the present question --- "Do you think we should go about reducing the killing efficiency of civilians who use guns to illegally kill others? --- is mostly because it seems likely that the present SCOTUS will roll back gun-control-type laws present and future.

My interest is evaluating the merits of alternative lawful approaches to reducing that sort of killing efficiency.  Short of tweaking the 2nd Amendment, maybe there are none worth attempting such that we need to find the money to better protect folks from the maniacs --- and of course to handle maniacs better before they kill people.

You've thought a lot more about this than I have, so maybe you have some thoughts on potentially-effective approaches that I might think of as out-of-the-box.

 

Raz'r

Super Anarchist
62,192
5,440
De Nile
Pretty sure that's debatable.  

My favorable 'position' on the long-expired Federal assault weapons ban was knee-jerk.  From my perspective since paying more attention, it wasn't stupid or dangerous.  I've seen conflicting seemingly-rigorous analyses about its impact. 

My interest in the present question --- "Do you think we should go about reducing the killing efficiency of civilians who use guns to illegally kill others? --- is mostly because it seems likely that the present SCOTUS will roll back gun-control-type laws present and future.

My interest is evaluating the merits of alternative lawful approaches to reducing that sort of killing efficiency.  Short of tweaking the 2nd Amendment, maybe there are none worth attempting such that we need to find the money to better protect folks from the maniacs --- and of course to handle maniacs better before they kill people.

You've thought a lot more about this than I have, so maybe you have some thoughts on potentially-effective approaches that I might think of as out-of-the-box.
About the only thing I've seen that could work is holding venues liable for security. It's not like schools, malls, movie theaters, post offices, etc don't know that their customers hold a non-zero chance of being shot on their premises. Make them at least financially liable, and their insurance companies, and we might see some movement to hardening those sites, just like courts are hardened, today. (and airports, and ball parks... - try to get into one with a metallic weapon, you will be apprehended)

To me, it's just a cost of our freedom.

 

Blue Crab

benthivore
16,147
2,595
Outer Banks
Much could be done pre-massacre*.

Many of these killers over the years were known oddballs, and a couple had been red-flagged I believe.

*slopes don't get much slicker

 

Latest posts




Top