Stun Guns: Dangerous and Unusual?

[Pertinacious Tom]

The Guard outgrew the farmers and their flintlocks as the country expanded. All readers here know this.

At the risk of endlessly refuting the same endless, mindless point,

The Bill of Rights applies to modern technology. Even the second amendment is not restricted to 1789 technology, much as TeamD/grabby types might like to imply that it is or should be. Yes, I mean even if a State Supreme Court disagrees.

The BS about muskets is equivalent to the BS about flintlocks. Quit endlessly and repetitively bringing it up and I'll quit refuting it.

 

[Blue Crab]

My point that you missed wasn't about flintlocks but rather, what is a well regulated militia? This ain't one:

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

My point that you missed wasn't about flintlocks but rather, what is a well regulated militia?

So why bring up an irrelevant point? Do you bring up inkwells when talking about the first amendment?

A militia is a group of The People who have appeared bearing their own military weapons to undertake a military task. A well-regulated one would be such a group that is expert in military maneuvers.

But such a militia group can't be formed, let alone well-regulated, unless we can agree on some basic things about The People from whom the groups are drawn.

Like: are they allowed modern weapons and are they allowed to be outdoors with them?

They're really stupid questions but both went to SCOTUS because grabbers will latch onto any old argument, even really stupid ones, without question.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

Restricting the ownership of muskets to well-regulated militias.

The second amendment, like the rest of the Bill of Rights, applies to new technology.

SCOTUS was unanimous about this.

Why do you think they all got it so wrong?

 

[phillysailor]

The second amendment, like the rest of the Bill of Rights, applies to new technology.

SCOTUS was unanimous about this.

Why do you think they all got it so wrong?

They are always going on about “original intent.” I think they are sometimes hypocritical on this point in service of political ideology and this is a good example.

 

[jocal505]

Dogballs:
A militia is a group of The People who have appeared bearing their own military weapons to undertake a military task. A well-regulated one would be such a group that is expert in military maneuvers.

Joe: GTFO. JFC.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

They are always going on about “original intent.” I think they are sometimes hypocritical on this point in service of political ideology and this is a good example.

The ENTIRE court is doing that? Just want to be clear about who you are claiming acts this way because the topic case was decided unanimously. The Bill of Rights applies to modern technology. That's not just some right wing nut job idea. It's a pretty basic rule.

I don't buy the idea that ALL of the court decided it the way they did for the reason you say. It looks like a messenger attack that might apply to some and can't explain all.

Do you have a better explanation that explains all the votes?

Mine is: the Bill of Rights applies to new technology that comes along. If they all hold that view, it explains all their votes.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

The Court has held that “the Second Amendment ex-
tends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute
bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at
the time of the founding,” District of Columbia v. Heller,
554 U. S. 570, 582 (2008), and that this “Second Amend-
ment right is fully applicable to the States,” McDonald v.
Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 750 (2010). In this case, the Su-
preme Judicial Court of Massachusetts upheld a Massa-
chusetts law prohibiting the possession of stun guns after
examining “whether a stun gun is the type of weapon
contemplated by Congress in 1789 as being protected by
the Second Amendment.” 470 Mass. 774, 777, 26 N. E. 3d
688, 691 (2015).
The court offered three explanations to support its
holding that the Second Amendment does not extend to
stun guns. First, the court explained that stun guns are
not protected because they “were not in common use at the
time of the Second Amendment’s enactment.” Id., at 781,
26 N. E. 3d, at 693. This is inconsistent with Heller’s clear
statement that the Second Amendment “extends . . . to . . .
arms . . . that were not in existence at the time of the
founding.” 554 U. S., at 582.
The court next asked whether stun guns are “dangerous
per se at common law and unusual,” 470 Mass., at 781, 26
N. E. 3d, at 694, in an attempt to apply one “important
limitation on the right to keep and carry arms,” Heller,
554 U. S., at 627; see ibid. (referring to “the historical
tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and
unusual weapons’ ”). In so doing, the court concluded that
stun guns are “unusual” because they are “a thoroughly
modern invention.” 470 Mass., at 781, 26 N. E. 3d, at
693–694. By equating “unusual” with “in common use at
the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment,” the
court’s second explanation is the same as the first; it is
inconsistent with Heller for the same reason.
Finally, the court used “a contemporary lens” and found
“nothing in the record to suggest that [stun guns] are
readily adaptable to use in the military.” 470 Mass., at
781, 26 N. E. 3d, at 694. But Heller rejected the proposi-
tion “that only those weapons useful in warfare are pro-
tected.” 554 U. S., at 624–625.
For these three reasons, the explanation the Massachu-
setts court offered for upholding the law contradicts this
Court’s precedent. Consequently, the petition for a writ of
certiorari and the motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis are granted. The judgment of the Supreme
Judicial Court of Massachusetts is vacated, and the case is
remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with
this opinion.

That's the explanation offered without dissent by the court.

I find it a lot more believeable than philly's idea that Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan are wild eyed originalists who can't even get originalism right.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

They are always going on about “original intent.” I think they are sometimes hypocritical on this point in service of political ideology and this is a good example.

This is some of that terrible disinformation that is ruining the world and the fact that you won't retract it or explain why you think Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan are "always going on about original intent" tells me you know it's disinformation and just want to shit out a lie and walk away.

Is that the look I'm looking at?

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

My opinion is irrelevant. Even the supreme court is nothing more than the opinion of a handful of people and is to some extent therefore also irrelevant. Give it another 15 or 20 years and the group of judges on the SC is changed, likely resulting in an opinion change. Take the Roe vs Wade rulings as an example. The supreme court ruled in 1973 in one way while last year, with a totally different group of judges, it ruled the total opposite, interpreting the same text. This indicates that every single Supreme Court decision is nothing more than the opinion of a handful of people, that in many cases have a personal bias that they can't set aside when ruling.

The fact that the SCOTUS overrules an individual states' Supreme Court with a very different ruling based on the same documents is the perfect example of what I'm trying to explain here. Most constitutions include the decision making strategy in it. I already brought it up in my previous post: is it to be interpreted in the spirit of the law or to the letter of the law when those two are opposing. The result of the ruling can be very different. The US constitution does not have a paragraph included on this and that is the cause that the USA is one of the few countries in the world that is repeating the same debates over and over again.

So you asking me for my opinion on two different interpretations of the same text is irrelevant. What in my opinion is relevant is the historic context, and that one is very clear if one reads some historical books on this subject.

The founding fathers were fighting for separation from the British Empire and when writing the constitution they were of the opinion that the British Justice System was too difficult to work with as the letter of the law was to overrule the spirit of the law. Therefore a lawyer that can make a good argument that the letter of the law is not applicable in a specific case can get his client get away with a crime that would have been very clearly a crime when the spirit of the law is the leading factor. Their intention was to turn this around from the British system. Unfortunately they forgot to include it in the document and therefore it was nothing more than their intention and it never made it into law.

When you read the rulings of the SC decisions (have you actually done that?), it is very clear that it is basically an argument of spirit vs letter of the second amendment. When looking back to the historic context of the document, it is also very clear that it was intended to reduce the cost of the US army which was founded 16 years prior to admitting that document. There were only 13 states at the time and Vermont was about to be admitted to the Union as well. The cost of the army for the 15 years it had been in place was far too expensive and the idea was to arm 'well organized militia's' in addition to the army and that these militia's were allowed to be properly armed to fulfil the function of army support. In addition, they wanted to be able to call on an army of well armed men in case of a rogue army commander that was leading towards a coup or insurrection and would be able to fight off the US army in such an event.

In the end, the US constitution is very poorly written and leaves too much room for interpretation, hence some of the debates of interpretation that have been ongoing for centuries. In all honesty, these debates will never be settled either, unless amendments to the constitution are made. As I explained before, that is never going to happen in the current political climate as there will never be a 2/3rd majority in both the house and the senate and you'll never find 38 states that will agree with each other. So that is nothing more than an unrealistic pipe dream and for a large part responsible for the polarization that is currently ongoing in the US of A.

The US constitution was made up and signed by 55 individuals, only 25 of them were lawyers by title and some of them only had been so for a few years. So basically the US law is based on the good intentions of a group of people that had little knowledge about law and ruling, and it shows in how the document was written.

Circling back to your question about what I believe? Well, reading through both rulings I think that neither was done so in the spirit of the second amendment and therefore neither was as it was intended by the founding fathers.

But hey, that is just my opinion.
Now your turn; you explain to me why I can't drive a tank and shoot grenades all over the place?

Yes, I have read lots of them.

I've also now read a really long post dodging the topic question, perhaps the longest dodge on record.

So now I know I'm dealing with a person who can't just admit that whether the Bill of Rights covers new tech shouldn't even be a question before any court because it's a damn joke.

You can't drive a tank and shoot grenades because they're dangerous and unusual, not the sort of things that The People would have at home for ordinary, lawful purposes like battlefield .22s.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

‘Wrong things can be changed’: Justice Sotomayor

That's one Wise Latina and I agree with her vote to change the wrong decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Court.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

Yes, Americans can have sticks.

...

Downplayed as inconsequential or of limited use in 2016, Caetano has shown to be of great significance. Bans on the possession of stun guns have been removed from all state bodies of law. Bans on the carry of weapons other than firearms are of significance. They serve as a precedent for bans on the carry of firearms. In Hawaii, in a settlement before the federal district court, the State of Hawaii has admitted bans on the carry of “billies” or batons, or, basically, any short clubs, are unconstitutional. On May 23, the United States District Court for the District of Hawai’i approved of a stipulated final judgement and permanent injunction. From the judgment and injunction:
...

I would have thought the argument that the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to modern technology would wind up being inconsequential because of limited support, but like banning battlefield .22's the amount of political and legal support for this crazy idea has surprised me.

And it still continues. Another judge just had to tell Illinois that the Bill of Rights applies to modern tech. Grabbers are NOT going to give up on this argument and Caetano will be useful unless/until it is overruled.