Massachusetts court says ban on stun guns violates Second Amendment
Interesting to see this coming out of Massachusetts
Interesting to see this coming out of Massachusetts
Massachusetts court says ban on stun guns violates Second Amendment
- Thread starter GOPerfect
- Start date
BDinPutnam
.475 A&M Magnum
Shady but not unexpected. They are trying to give the state law makers an end-run around the Caetano case.
carpediem
.338 Win Mag
Talk about not really adding up. They ban everything but these are ok?
The SCOTUS already decided this.
Mass is just making a lame attempt to avoid prosecution, after the fact.
The decision marked a reversal for the court, which reached an opposite conclusion in a different case in 2015. The U.S. Supreme Court, however, set aside that earlier ruling, saying the Massachusetts court failed to properly explain its decision.
Mass is just making a lame attempt to avoid prosecution, after the fact.
The decision marked a reversal for the court, which reached an opposite conclusion in a different case in 2015. The U.S. Supreme Court, however, set aside that earlier ruling, saying the Massachusetts court failed to properly explain its decision.
What is the Court Case in SCOTUS? I am not familiar with that case.
Still illegal in NY State
Stun Gun Laws in New York
BDinPutnam
.475 A&M Magnum
Caetano, GOPerfect, as cited above by Case.
I read this as the Mass court trying to open a hole for the legislature so they can squeeze in a ban that somehow doesn't conflict with Caetano, Heller, or McDonald.
I read this as the Mass court trying to open a hole for the legislature so they can squeeze in a ban that somehow doesn't conflict with Caetano, Heller, or McDonald.
It is the Mass Courts falling into line after the SCOTUS issued their blistering direction to lower courts, here Mass, but others for "NOT" following earlier decisions, ie, Heller, MacDonald, etc.
But without teeth, this is how long a State can fudge around until fixing things? Lifetimes will erode before any significant gains come, at the expense of immediate losses when your Rights are concerned. Doesn't matter the issue, that in itself is the predictor and reality of your "Rights" being mere conveniences to those who Rule us all!
Have a nice day
But without teeth, this is how long a State can fudge around until fixing things? Lifetimes will erode before any significant gains come, at the expense of immediate losses when your Rights are concerned. Doesn't matter the issue, that in itself is the predictor and reality of your "Rights" being mere conveniences to those who Rule us all!
Have a nice day
It is the Mass Courts falling into line after the SCOTUS issued their blistering direction to lower courts, here Mass, but others for "NOT" following earlier decisions, ie, Heller, MacDonald, etc.
But without teeth, this is how long a State can fudge around until fixing things? Lifetimes will erode before any significant gains come, at the expense of immediate losses when your Rights are concerned. Doesn't matter the issue, that in itself is the predictor and reality of your "Rights" being mere conveniences to those who Rule us all!
Have a nice day
Yes.