2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 112,334
- 52,581
- 2,290
Two good cases were decided ...one stops a magazine and rifle ban in Deerfield, Illinois, the other one stops a Stun Gun ban in New York....I mean, come on anti-gunners....Stun Guns? You don't want people to have those.....besides, Justice Alito already stated in the Caetano v. Massachusetts decision that Stun Guns are protected by the 2nd Amendment....
BREAKING: Illinois Judge Permanently Blocks Deerfield's 'Assault Weapon' and Magazine Possession Bans - The Truth About Guns
Today, an Illinois judge in the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit Court for Lake County, IL ruled for gun owners in the case of Guns Save Life, Inc. v. Village of Deerfield. The order issued today permanently blocks enforcement the Village of Deerfield’s gun ban.
The ordinance would have outlawed America’s favorite rifle and numerous other popular firearms along with standard capacity ammunition magazines in today’s best-selling and most used handguns and rifles.
=====
BREAKING: US District Court Strikes Down New York's Ban on TASERs and Stun Guns - The Truth About Guns
New York, being opposed to citizens having the ability to adequately defend themselves, either within our outside their homes, has had a longtime banon the possession of electronic dart (TASER) and stun guns. Owning one is a misdemeanor and displaying or threatening to use one is a felony.
But not any more. In a decision announced today, US District Court Judge David N. Hurd has struck down the state’s ban under the Heller decision, ruling that the prohibition is a violation of the Second Amendment.
The Stun Gun was already protected under Heller, and Justice Alito had to explain this to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals by explaining it, as if to a child, why the 4th is stupid in his opinion in Caetano v Massachusetts......
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf
Third, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they were not "readily adaptable to use in the military", but the Supreme Court held that Heller rejected the argument that "only those weapons useful in warfare" were protected by the Second Amendment.[12]
----As to “dangerous,” the court below held that a weapon is “dangerous per se” if it is “ ‘designed and constructed to produce death or great bodily harm’ and ‘for the purpose of bodily assault or defense.’” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692 (quoting Commonwealth v. Appleby, 380 Mass. 296, 303, 402 N. E. 2d 1051, 1056 (1980)).
That test may be appropriate for applying statutes criminalizing assault with a dangerous weapon. See ibid., 402 N. E. 2d, at 1056. But it cannot be used to identify arms that fall outside the Second Amendment. First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’”).
Second, even in cases where dangerousness might be relevant, the Supreme Judicial Court’s test sweeps far too broadly.
Heller defined the “Arms” covered by the Second Amendment to include “‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’” 554 U. S., at 581.
Under the decision below, however, virtually every covered arm would qualify as “dangerous.” Were there any doubt on this point, one need only look at the court’s first example of “dangerous per se” weapons: “firearms.” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692.
If Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous. 554 U. S., at 636. A fortiori, stun guns that the Commonwealth’s own witness described as “non-lethal force,” Tr. 27, cannot be banned on that basis.---------
The court also opined that a weapon’s unusualness depends on whether “it is a weapon of warfare to be used by the militia.” 470 Mass., at 780, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693. It asserted that we followed such an approach in Miller and “approved its use in Heller.” 470 Mass., at 780, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693.
But Heller actually said that it would be a “startling reading” of Miller to conclude that “only those weapons useful in warfare are protected.” 554 U. S., at 624.
Instead, Miller and Heller recognized that militia members traditionally reported for duty carrying “the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home,” and that the Second Amendment therefore protects such weapons as a class, regardless of any particular weapon’s suitability for military use.
554 U. S., at 627; see id., at 624–625. Indeed, Heller acknowledged that advancements in military technology might render many commonly owned weapons ineffective in warfare. Id., at 627–628. But such “modern developments . . . cannot change our interpretation of the right.” Ibid.
In any event, the Supreme Judicial Court’s assumption that stun guns are unsuited for militia or military use is untenable.
BREAKING: Illinois Judge Permanently Blocks Deerfield's 'Assault Weapon' and Magazine Possession Bans - The Truth About Guns
Today, an Illinois judge in the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit Court for Lake County, IL ruled for gun owners in the case of Guns Save Life, Inc. v. Village of Deerfield. The order issued today permanently blocks enforcement the Village of Deerfield’s gun ban.
The ordinance would have outlawed America’s favorite rifle and numerous other popular firearms along with standard capacity ammunition magazines in today’s best-selling and most used handguns and rifles.
=====
BREAKING: US District Court Strikes Down New York's Ban on TASERs and Stun Guns - The Truth About Guns
New York, being opposed to citizens having the ability to adequately defend themselves, either within our outside their homes, has had a longtime banon the possession of electronic dart (TASER) and stun guns. Owning one is a misdemeanor and displaying or threatening to use one is a felony.
But not any more. In a decision announced today, US District Court Judge David N. Hurd has struck down the state’s ban under the Heller decision, ruling that the prohibition is a violation of the Second Amendment.
The Stun Gun was already protected under Heller, and Justice Alito had to explain this to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals by explaining it, as if to a child, why the 4th is stupid in his opinion in Caetano v Massachusetts......
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf
Third, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they were not "readily adaptable to use in the military", but the Supreme Court held that Heller rejected the argument that "only those weapons useful in warfare" were protected by the Second Amendment.[12]
----As to “dangerous,” the court below held that a weapon is “dangerous per se” if it is “ ‘designed and constructed to produce death or great bodily harm’ and ‘for the purpose of bodily assault or defense.’” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692 (quoting Commonwealth v. Appleby, 380 Mass. 296, 303, 402 N. E. 2d 1051, 1056 (1980)).
That test may be appropriate for applying statutes criminalizing assault with a dangerous weapon. See ibid., 402 N. E. 2d, at 1056. But it cannot be used to identify arms that fall outside the Second Amendment. First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’”).
Second, even in cases where dangerousness might be relevant, the Supreme Judicial Court’s test sweeps far too broadly.
Heller defined the “Arms” covered by the Second Amendment to include “‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’” 554 U. S., at 581.
Under the decision below, however, virtually every covered arm would qualify as “dangerous.” Were there any doubt on this point, one need only look at the court’s first example of “dangerous per se” weapons: “firearms.” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692.
If Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous. 554 U. S., at 636. A fortiori, stun guns that the Commonwealth’s own witness described as “non-lethal force,” Tr. 27, cannot be banned on that basis.---------
The court also opined that a weapon’s unusualness depends on whether “it is a weapon of warfare to be used by the militia.” 470 Mass., at 780, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693. It asserted that we followed such an approach in Miller and “approved its use in Heller.” 470 Mass., at 780, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693.
But Heller actually said that it would be a “startling reading” of Miller to conclude that “only those weapons useful in warfare are protected.” 554 U. S., at 624.
Instead, Miller and Heller recognized that militia members traditionally reported for duty carrying “the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home,” and that the Second Amendment therefore protects such weapons as a class, regardless of any particular weapon’s suitability for military use.
554 U. S., at 627; see id., at 624–625. Indeed, Heller acknowledged that advancements in military technology might render many commonly owned weapons ineffective in warfare. Id., at 627–628. But such “modern developments . . . cannot change our interpretation of the right.” Ibid.
In any event, the Supreme Judicial Court’s assumption that stun guns are unsuited for militia or military use is untenable.