S-4849, stun gun regulation

SUCH REGULATIONS SHALL INCLUDE A MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE DELIVERED CHARGE FOR SUCH DEVICES,

Click to expand...

So they're going to make them useless.

SuffolkArms said:

So they're going to make them useless.

Click to expand...

Not for the animals that are attacking you

SuffolkArms said:

So they're going to make them useless.

Click to expand...

And by adding state specific demands, unavailable.

At this pace, rape whistles will be regulated by next year.

ETA: Screw NY and the useful idiots that elect the asshat politicians.

Limits possession to home and business, consistent with the defined scope of Heller. Not a surprise this has come out of the Legislature. But it also means that NY may not be planning to appeal the decision.

If people are allowed to defend themselves, muggers etc will not be able to work. They will have to go on welfair or unemployment. This is a cost saving measure.

When they make it illegal to carry a "taser" outside the home or you have to get a permit to do so, that makes it even more likely that "may issue" will be over turned by the Supreme Court at some point.

Such a law has nothing to do with safety (except for criminals) and everything to do with control of the subjects and making then more dependent on the state.

Btw, this is rock solid proof (if you needed any) that NY laws have nothing to do with crime/making people safer.

Unless they have some great data showing the dangers they pose to NY citizens in the few weeks they have been legal. They are making things illegal nearly simultaneously with them being made legal. Stunning.

Disingenuous on its face if it is comparing itself to the law on "self defense spray."

Even NYC lets me carry 2 oz. of Sabre, well, well outside of the home. Unless that's changed and I now need a lawyer.

The person who won the case should file a complaint to the court that issued the ruling to hold NY in contempt and issue a warrant for Cuomos arrest.

Looks like it could be possible if we had a judge with balls

Federal judge considers holding D.C. in contempt over gun laws

"
Although these weapons are generally designed and intended to incapaci-
tate their targets, they are more than capable of killing. There have
been numerous instances of people dying as a result of being struck by
these weapons across the United States in recent years. It is imperative
in light of the recent court decision that New York act to impose sensi-
ble restrictions on the use of these potentially deadly weapons in order
to protect our residents from harm."

what a whole 5 or 10 over 5 yrs where is your data u fkin num nut .


I'll just carry the num chucks .. they stun ya but wont kill ya ..

Some douchebag lawmaker said:

"There have been numerous instances of people dying as a result of being struck by
these weapons across the United States in recent years. It is imperative
in light of the recent court decision that New York act to impose sensi-
ble restrictions on the use of these potentially deadly weapons in order
to protect our residents from harm."

Click to expand...

There have been many more instances of people dying as a result of citizens not being able to utilize other tools to defend themselves and their families. How many people could have and WOULD have used less-lethal device like a Taser, and have instead resorted to using a firearm and killing someone?