Stun Guns: Dangerous and Unusual?

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
62,124
1,894
Punta Gorda FL
Nope. Just cause something is dangerous doesn't make it protected. Check into slingshots and potato canons
Those are not recognized as being protected and we've talked before about slingshot bans in some places. To me, slingshot and tater cannons are "arms" and should be protected. So are stun guns.

Paintball guns aren't, though I don't see the sense in banning them. We all have a line or two somewhere.

 
G

Guest

Guest
You have a funny definition of "arms"...
Agree. I think there is a difference between what is a constitutionally protected firearm and a device/toy that is simply ludicrous to outlaw or classify as an "assault weapon" - such as an airsoft gun. IMHO, if a state wants to outlaw an airsoft gun, a potato cannon or a slingshot - I don't think the constitution would prohibit that. But it would be exceptionally silly to do so.

I'm pretty sure I would not show up to militia service bearing a sling shot, even though it may have worked for David a long time ago.....

 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
62,124
1,894
Punta Gorda FL
Back when I used to shoot it regularly, I could pretty easily kill a person with this:

assault-slingshot.jpg


Just have to get close enough. It would not make a lot of noise either.

Sticks are protected in CT.

My assault slingshot (if I bought new bands and practiced until accurate again) seems more like an "arm" to me than a stick.

I know, I know, I have a funny definition of "the people" too.

 

Raz'r

Super Anarchist
62,364
5,532
De Nile
Sound like if you can kill with it, it's an arm to Publius. I suppose sharpened flints on a stick would count.

Hey Publius, we are still talking about the constitution, not just silly laws, right?

 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
62,124
1,894
Punta Gorda FL
Are bows costitutionally protected too? Blow guns? Boomerangs?
I'd say yes to all three. The boomerang being the most questionable, but as I pointed out above, sticks are already protected in CT.
So a well regulated militia could be equipped with boomerangs and wrist rockets. Interesting times indeed.
The closest we came to a well regulated militia was requiring people to own guns, ammo, and supplies. If we were to go back to attempting to ensure that the people remain equipped to form a militia at any time, I'd say we should require mean-looking rifles.

But if people want to own bows or sticks of various shapes, I don't see a compelling governmental interest that would allow for banning possession of those things by the people. Absent such an interest, they should be protected, just as that court in CT said.

Of course, I'm not from New Jersey.

 

Raz'r

Super Anarchist
62,364
5,532
De Nile
Are bows costitutionally protected too? Blow guns? Boomerangs?
I'd say yes to all three. The boomerang being the most questionable, but as I pointed out above, sticks are already protected in CT.
So a well regulated militia could be equipped with boomerangs and wrist rockets. Interesting times indeed.
The closest we came to a well regulated militia was requiring people to own guns, ammo, and supplies. If we were to go back to attempting to ensure that the people remain equipped to form a militia at any time, I'd say we should require mean-looking rifles.

But if people want to own bows or sticks of various shapes, I don't see a compelling governmental interest that would allow for banning possession of those things by the people. Absent such an interest, they should be protected, just as that court in CT said.

Of course, I'm not from New Jersey.

Now, do you hang your wrist rocket on the wall next to the mean looking black fire stick?

Hell, gov't bans shit all the time, I don't see a 2nd amendment case wrt wrist rockets.

 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
62,124
1,894
Punta Gorda FL
The closest we came to a well regulated militia was requiring people to own guns, ammo, and supplies. If we were to go back to attempting to ensure that the people remain equipped to form a militia at any time, I'd say we should require mean-looking rifles.

But if people want to own bows or sticks of various shapes, I don't see a compelling governmental interest that would allow for banning possession of those things by the people. Absent such an interest, they should be protected, just as that court in CT said.

Of course, I'm not from New Jersey.
Now, do you hang your wrist rocket on the wall next to the mean looking black fire stick?

Hell, gov't bans shit all the time, I don't see a 2nd amendment case wrt wrist rockets.
I don't have any mean-looking rifles. Mine are all cute and harmless-looking. But if I did have one, it would be in the safe with the cute ones.

The wrist rocket sits neglected in a closet with what little is left of the surgical tubing cracking and disintegrating.

So you see a second amendment case wrt dirk knives and batons?

The CT Supreme Court did.

So holds the Connecticut Supreme Court, in the just-released State v. DeCiccio. Here’s an excerpt of the reasoning as to police batons, which also applies in large measure to dirks, and which, I would argue, should apply to stun guns and Tasers (paragraph break added). (Disclosure: I represent the Association of Women Against Rape and Endangerment, as amicus curiae, in Commonwealth v. Caetano, now pending before the Massachusetts high court; that cases involves the question whether stun guns and Tasers are “arms” for Second Amendment purposes; we argue that they are.)
Now we can be more sure that it applies to stun guns. What is it about sticks and stun guns that merits protection while slingshots do not in your view?

 
It takes 6/10 of an amp at 1 volt through the heart to kill a human. There is about a one square foot area in the middle of the chest that if it is hit by a taser / stun gun, you can stop the heart.

Just some electrical facts.

I know F--k off newbie !!

 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
62,124
1,894
Punta Gorda FL
It takes 6/10 of an amp at 1 volt through the heart to kill a human. There is about a one square foot area in the middle of the chest that if it is hit by a taser / stun gun, you can stop the heart.

Just some electrical facts.

I know F--k off newbie !!
If you know that, why don't I see knockers?

 

Raz'r

Super Anarchist
62,364
5,532
De Nile
The closest we came to a well regulated militia was requiring people to own guns, ammo, and supplies. If we were to go back to attempting to ensure that the people remain equipped to form a militia at any time, I'd say we should require mean-looking rifles.

But if people want to own bows or sticks of various shapes, I don't see a compelling governmental interest that would allow for banning possession of those things by the people. Absent such an interest, they should be protected, just as that court in CT said.

Of course, I'm not from New Jersey.
Now, do you hang your wrist rocket on the wall next to the mean looking black fire stick?

Hell, gov't bans shit all the time, I don't see a 2nd amendment case wrt wrist rockets.
I don't have any mean-looking rifles. Mine are all cute and harmless-looking. But if I did have one, it would be in the safe with the cute ones.

The wrist rocket sits neglected in a closet with what little is left of the surgical tubing cracking and disintegrating.

So you see a second amendment case wrt dirk knives and batons?

The CT Supreme Court did.

So holds the Connecticut Supreme Court, in the just-released State v. DeCiccio. Heres an excerpt of the reasoning as to police batons, which also applies in large measure to dirks, and which, I would argue, should apply to stun guns and Tasers (paragraph break added). (Disclosure: I represent the Association of Women Against Rape and Endangerment, as amicus curiae, in Commonwealth v. Caetano, now pending before the Massachusetts high court; that cases involves the question whether stun guns and Tasers are arms for Second Amendment purposes; we argue that they are.)
Now we can be more sure that it applies to stun guns. What is it about sticks and stun guns that merits protection while slingshots do not in your view?

Why should I care about the CT supremes?

 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
62,124
1,894
Punta Gorda FL
Because the way that any level of government treats any of our protected rights can affect how every level of government treats all of our protected rights. Even ones you care about.

And because the reasoning used for the protection of sticks is similar to the case you said you could not see, so I thought you might want to learn something.

But if protected rights and learning are among the many things that make you say "Meh," so be it.

 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
62,124
1,894
Punta Gorda FL
I've poked a lot of fun at Austrailia and New Jersey for their slingshot bans.

I didn't realize that Florida had a slungshot ban, which is even more ridiculous.

A "slungshot" is a monkey's fist knot with a weight inside. I guess it's sort of dangerous. I wouldn't want to be smacked by one. It's certainly unusual. I've heard of that technique for tossing a light rope that is then used to haul a heavy mooring line from a ship. But I've never heard of it being a weapon so it's an unusual one to me. But not all that dangerous so I'd say it's protected.

If i knew we had a ban on them I would have made myself one. :p

 

Latest posts




Top