Stun Guns: Dangerous and Unusual?

jocal505

moderate, informed, ex-gunowner
14,263
298
near Seattle, Wa
Dead Eye Dick to aisle six.

Bpm, this ruling is the other recent "pro-rights" victory. Why do I say that? Because Pooplius presents it as the big post-McDonald victory. I  am happy to retract when you produce an upper court victory after 2010.

You need to check it out stun gun freedom (and do a thug job on Joe. See you there. (hmmm, the ruling covers indoors only again)

 

jocal505

moderate, informed, ex-gunowner
14,263
298
near Seattle, Wa
No it was written for the politics in existence at the time and it is a ridiculous idea that that has any relevance today.  
Understated, and keen. ^^^

I read a bunch of stuff, the actual happenings of those days, which showed the arcane frame of mind. The sources were disparate. A groove became apparent. 

written for the politics in existence
Crime and personal self-protection did not enter in within these notes and written thoughts. Nor did natives, whatsoever. Slaves were barely mentioned. How to balance federal and state use of the milita was the entire thrust, with eventual reluctant accommodations for pacifists. Standing down the feds was in play, but only by the practiced virtu of a sharp militia. The feds could stand down any insurrection, where the state militia might be questionable.

Gun confiscation by colonial authority happened at all levels without controversy. The authority to confiscate powder was cited by governors without editorial ourcry, or even comment.

Yes, LB, he gun guys have been sold a bill of goods, and they loved the presentation.

The SAF and GOA are on such a flyer,  it circles five different race courses. The RC's crash boats cannot even reach them for safety on their horizon job to nowhere. In this unsupported, convenient fantasy, get this, Jeffie thinks of himself as Paul Revere, and Tom as Publius. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:

jocal505

moderate, informed, ex-gunowner
14,263
298
near Seattle, Wa
Hmm, I can't seem to find a SCOTUS decision that states this, Joe. Want to find a quote that actually states this, or are you going to just run with Henderson's dream?
Hi bpm. Sure, okay, I'll look for it. But this will be the third time and I don't need to spam mate. Read the threads, try using search words to pursue the topic discussions.

FULL DISCLOSURE There was a third post-MCDonald victory which Pooplius once offered. The open carry of AW's was proclaimed by a judge in the Marianas Islands. YCMTSU.

The significance is that that kinda makes her a rogue judge within the Ninth Circuit. They're not much for AW's.

 

jocal505

moderate, informed, ex-gunowner
14,263
298
near Seattle, Wa
Bpm, here I get the pleasure of hooking you up, again, with Eugene Volokh. He is the cleanest, most stalwart scholar in your camp. IMO. He is your best means to shut me up, by the way. Enjoy.

 (Caetano herself was carrying a stun gun in public, but the Massachusetts ban nor the Massachusetts high court decision distinguished home possession of a stun gun from possession in public; and though the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court stated that “The conduct at issue in this case falls outside the ‘core’ of the Second Amendment, insofar as the defendant was not using the stun gun to defend herself in her home,” the court categorically said that “the Second Amendment right articulated by Heller” does not “cover stun guns,” without distinguish home possession from public possession. The Caetano Supreme Court opinion thus doesn’t decide whether the Second Amendment applies to possessing stun guns — or any other weapons — in public places.)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/03/21/unanimous-pro-second-amendment-stun-gun-decision-from-the-supreme-court/?utm_term=.73dbd2dd4d3b

 
Last edited by a moderator:

bpm57

Super Anarchist
2,624
60
New Jersey
Bpm, here I get the pleasure of hooking you up, again, with Eugene Volokh. He is the cleanest, most stalwart scholar in your camp. IMO. He is your best means to shut me up, by the way. Enjoy.
I would of expected that the Caetano ruling was short enough that you wouldn't need someone to summarize it for you,

Joe.

 

jocal505

moderate, informed, ex-gunowner
14,263
298
near Seattle, Wa
I would of expected that the Caetano ruling was short enough that you wouldn't need someone to summarize it for you,

Joe.
This is an ad hominem without comment about the quality content. Again.  As you can see, stun gun rights are not granted outdoors by Caetano. 

Bookmobile police, or what? Nibbling at my ankles agan? I dunno if I read it all, or not, who's counting?

Now, you and I BOTH approve of stun gun use in homes. Caetano blowback was used as a lever within Kolbe. 

If the majority were correct, then any state “would be free to ban all weapons except handguns, because handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home.” Caetano, 136 S. Ct. 1032

 (Kolbrep90)“the carrying of  ‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” has been prohibited as a matter of “historical tradition.” Id. at 627; see Caetano v. Massachusetts, 136 S. Ct. 1027, 1028 (2016)

 
Last edited by a moderator:

bpm57

Super Anarchist
2,624
60
New Jersey
Now, you and I BOTH approve of stun gun use in homes. Caetano blowback was used as a lever within Kolbe.
Oh yes, the Kolbe ruling. The one where a group of "learned" judges explained to us that technology that is over 100 years old is dangerous and unusual.

 

jocal505

moderate, informed, ex-gunowner
14,263
298
near Seattle, Wa
Oh yes, the Kolbe ruling. The one where a group of "learned" judges explained to us that technology that is over 100 years old is dangerous and unusual.
I didn't see Kolbe coming. I couldn't believe it, especially their extension of intermediate scrutiny. What happened?

As the Fourth CIrcuit justices considered AW's, police were mowed down by AW's, TWICE. (Baton Rouge and an attack on a Dallas Police station). The judges came out swinging, eh? They were empowered by Heller. 

 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
62,019
1,873
Punta Gorda FL
As the Fourth CIrcuit justices considered AW's, police were mowed down by AW's, TWICE. (Baton Rouge and an attack on a Dallas Police station). The judges came out swinging, eh?
How many more times do we have to see these assault weapon tragedies before you finally give up your assault weapon, Joe?

 

jocal505

moderate, informed, ex-gunowner
14,263
298
near Seattle, Wa
How many more times do we have to see these assault weapon tragedies before you finally give up your assault weapon, Joe?
You are losing sleep and wasting bandwidth in your dedication to openly grab guns. Mine, badlat's, wofsey's, Spatial's. What's up with that? How would this benefit you, if you don;t mind my asking? Is it just to annoy, what am I missing?

I hang onto my gun to speak as a moderate gunowner, which is what I am. You hate that; you can't let it go. Which adds value to a thing I'm pretty indifferent about. It's a dangerous, over-built indulgence on my part, a romantic need, just a good-looking symbol now, of what got screwed up from the trailer parks. 

 

jocal505

moderate, informed, ex-gunowner
14,263
298
near Seattle, Wa
FULL DISCLOSURE TO PREVENT AN ATTACK FROM DEAD EYE DICK (and to gratuitously quote Pooplius). Another major-pro-rights victory can be found in the big temporary injuction in CA.  So we now count four gun rights victories in the courts after McDonald. Am I right so far? Bueller, care to dump some cases into this conversation?

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
62,019
1,873
Punta Gorda FL
FULL DISCLOSURE TO PREVENT AN ATTACK FROM DEAD EYE DICK (and to gratuitously quote Pooplius). Another major-pro-rights victory can be found in the big temporary injuction in CA.  So count four gun rights victories in the courts after McDonald. Am I right so far? Bueller, care to dump some cases into this conversation?
I tried, but it only works on people who read so obviously won't work on you.

 

jocal505

moderate, informed, ex-gunowner
14,263
298
near Seattle, Wa
I tried, but it only works on people who read so obviously won't work on you.
If you get too silly, it's not worth reading. That would be on you. It's 2018, the mass killings have bad optics, while the courts organize a blurry stream constitutional restrictions. A pattern, with the clock ticking, and you present prolonged silliness and nonsense. Dead Eye Dick has stepped up to do your job these days.

 

jocal505

moderate, informed, ex-gunowner
14,263
298
near Seattle, Wa
And so we count FIVE  pro-rights  decisions since McDonald. And four seem doggone minor.

  • Wrenn: significantly, shall issue is forced on DC, with Wrenn expecting a future review of historic CC rights, if any
  • Caetano:  indoor stun guns are good to go
  • Marianas Islands: AW's are okay there for open carry
  • California: The Big Temporary Injunction
  • People v Cairez: ??? (unknown.); a very low fanfare factor = unheralded, unannounced, , and undescribed by Pooplius. The only footnote goes to Dorado.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

jocal505

moderate, informed, ex-gunowner
14,263
298
near Seattle, Wa
How many more times do we have to see these assault weapon tragedies before you finally give up your assault weapon, Joe?
Give us this day our daily gungrabbing. Pooplius, begging again. ^^^   :wacko:

gruel scene, Oliver.jpeg

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Latest posts




Top