04-05-2015 10:32 PM
30 12
tools
  1. Scott7217's Avatar
    Massachusetts ruled that stun guns are illegal for civilians because they are a "thoroughly modern invention" not protected by the Second Amendment.

    Ars Technica -- You have the right to bear arms, not “electrical” arms, court declares (article link)

    The case came about because a woman bought a stun gun to protect herself from the abusive father of her children. Authorities found her stun gun when they searched her purse (with her permission) while looking for a shop lifter. Possession of a stun gun carries a maximum sentence of two and a half years in jail.

    The court concluded that the woman could have applied for a permit for a concealed handgun instead because that is protected under the Second Amendment.

    I just find it strange that a less-than-lethal weapon is banned, but a handgun is not.
    03-25-2015 10:46 PM
  2. UpTheDumper's Avatar
    `Merica. Home if the guys that aren't afraid to **** **** up.
    Go you Massachusetts.

    Posted from the commode, thanks to Samsung Galaxy S5a.
    03-25-2015 10:49 PM
  3. A895's Avatar
    I had an argument with a gun nut on Reddit about background checks and registering for guns, and all he could think of "but my guns, the govt will take them it infringes on my second amendment!".

    The second amendment needs to be updated and gun laws need to be fixed. It is absurd it easier to get a gun then a nonlethal weapon.

    Posted via the Android Central App
    03-26-2015 01:03 PM
  4. UpTheDumper's Avatar
    I live in south dakota. They just passed a law that you do not even need a permit or anything to carry a gun. It's like we're trying to be back into the wild west. Things are different, as are weapons.

    I'm all for that, but I can name five people that just shouldn't have a fire arm. Not because of any other reason than stupidity and do not know how to handle a fire arm. (Nor do I think they should)

    Sometimes I just want to SCREAM at politicians. What are you thinking.. You going to be a hero?

    This also makes it harder to police and those with the training to be "heros" to rightly, safely, and quickly determ the "good" from "bad" guys. Let them handle it. Not some gun toating redneck fool try and handle the situation. What is our country coming to. Vomit I tell you, vomit.

    Posted from the commode, thanks to Samsung Galaxy S5a.
    03-26-2015 02:18 PM
  5. Scott7217's Avatar
    The second amendment needs to be updated and gun laws need to be fixed. It is absurd it easier to get a gun then a nonlethal weapon.
    Isn't Massachusetts a blue state? I would think they would ban (or heavily restrict) handguns and allow stun guns.
    03-26-2015 05:50 PM
  6. vinnie_boombhats's Avatar
    A shocking development. Will Massachusites bite the bullet on this one, or do you think the will they open fire and hopefully shoot down this bassackwards ruling?
    Scott7217 and A895 like this.
    03-26-2015 06:00 PM
  7. Scott7217's Avatar
    A shocking development. Will Massachusites bite the bullet on this one, or do you think the will they open fire and hopefully shoot down this bassackwards ruling?
    You probably need someone to appeal this to the US Supreme Court.
    03-26-2015 07:02 PM
  8. Mooncatt's Avatar
    You probably need someone to appeal this to the US Supreme Court.
    I don't know if the Supreme Court would have this under their jurisdiction. When you compare the law to firearms, it does sound dumb. But when you compare it to other non-lethal weapons, I doubt you could call a stun gun constitutionally protected any more than you could a baseball bat that's used for self defense. It sounds like an absurd law, and I'd like to hear the justification for it, but it does seem like a state issue.
    03-27-2015 12:29 AM
  9. Scott7217's Avatar
    I don't know if the Supreme Court would have this under their jurisdiction.
    I believe the US Supreme Court can judge Constitutional matters, including the Second Amendment.

    Besides, the case in question has gone all the way up to the highest court in Massachusetts, so there's nothing left except the Supreme Court.

    If the Supreme Court refuses to hear this case, then the previous ruling stands.

    In other words, a woman could possibly go to jail merely for purchasing a stun gun to protect herself from an abusive man. I'm sure her abuser would like that outcome.
    03-27-2015 04:00 PM
  10. NoYankees44's Avatar
    Why would they ban a stun gun? Restrictions are needed, but ban? This is an odd ruling.

    Also, I am pretty sure that Massachusetts is a "may issue" state for carry permits(which usually means no one gets one),which could be an argument this woman can use. I will have to look it up.

    This just goes to show that these people would outright ban firearms of they were allowed to. The second amendment is the only thing allowing those in more "progressive" states to keep their rights.

    Sent from my XT1096
    Scott7217 likes this.
    03-27-2015 04:27 PM
  11. NoYankees44's Avatar
    I live in south dakota. They just passed a law that you do not even need a permit or anything to carry a gun. It's like we're trying to be back into the wild west. Things are different, as are weapons.

    I'm all for that, but I can name five people that just shouldn't have a fire arm. Not because of any other reason than stupidity and do not know how to handle a fire arm. (Nor do I think they should)

    Sometimes I just want to SCREAM at politicians. What are you thinking.. You going to be a hero?

    This also makes it harder to police and those with the training to be "heros" to rightly, safely, and quickly determ the "good" from "bad" guys. Let them handle it. Not some gun toating redneck fool try and handle the situation. What is our country coming to. Vomit I tell you, vomit.

    Posted from the commode, thanks to Samsung Galaxy S5a.
    Most southern and Midwestern states allow you to open carry firearms without any sort of permit. This is the way it has always been. And believe it or not, it's not the "wild west". All states allow some sort of civilian carry permit, but some states have heavy requirements.

    Sent from my XT1096
    Scott7217 likes this.
    03-27-2015 04:30 PM
  12. Mooncatt's Avatar
    I believe the US Supreme Court can judge Constitutional matters, including the Second Amendment.
    Of course, but my point is that this may not be an issue covered by the U.S. Constitution for the Supreme Court to listen to.
    03-27-2015 04:38 PM
  13. UpTheDumper's Avatar
    I do believe it, and I am very educated on the matter. Just because I took a **** in a urinal, are you going to too?

    I'm all for freedoms but it makes me uncomfortable that any jackass can walk around with a weapon. No training required, no checking on mentality. I'm going to start cruising around with my family carrying my modded ar-15 and 44 mag just to protect my family from the uneducated, or untrained citizens carrying a loaded weapon.

    Posted from the commode, thanks to Samsung Galaxy S5a.
    03-27-2015 05:29 PM
  14. Scott7217's Avatar
    Also, I am pretty sure that Massachusetts is a "may issue" state for carry permits(which usually means no one gets one),which could be an argument this woman can use.
    Should victims of abuse have easier access to concealed handguns in order to defend themselves against their abusers?

    I think a lot of people wouldn't have a problem with that.
    03-30-2015 04:25 PM
  15. NoYankees44's Avatar
    Should victims of abuse have easier access to concealed handguns in order to defend themselves against their abusers?

    I think a lot of people wouldn't have a problem with that.
    Everyone is in good mental health and in good standing with the law should have access to carry permits. It is of course acceptable to tack on mandatory classes/training to those requirements, but things like that are small in the grand scheme of things. The state should have no right to determine whether or not an upstanding citizen "needs" to have the right to defend themselves. It should be a right to everyone that meets the minimum requirements.

    Sent from my XT1096
    Scott7217 likes this.
    03-30-2015 04:37 PM
  16. Scott7217's Avatar
    The state should have no right to determine whether or not an upstanding citizen "needs" to have the right to defend themselves. It should be a right to everyone that meets the minimum requirements.
    That's a fair point. I suppose it's all a formality anyway. Anyone could say that they need a handgun for self-defense.
    NoYankees44 likes this.
    03-31-2015 05:34 PM
  17. NoYankees44's Avatar
    That's a fair point. I suppose it's all a formality anyway. Anyone could say that they need a handgun for self-defense.
    Reading through forums and articles relating to "may issue" states tells me that it is very subjective to where you live. In most cases, it is up to the local police department to decide. They can choose to be lenient or choose to give out no permits at all. Which leads me back to my question of why is the government subjectively determining the "need" of a person to have the right to defend themselves.

    Sent from my XT1096
    04-01-2015 08:59 AM
  18. A895's Avatar
    Reading through forums and articles relating to "may issue" states tells me that it is very subjective to where you live. In most cases, it is up to the local police department to decide. They can choose to be lenient or choose to give out no permits at all. Which leads me back to my question of why is the government subjectively determining the "need" of a person to have the right to defend themselves.

    Sent from my XT1096
    You can defend yourself in other ways besides guns. The ol' fisticuffs? Taser? Pepper Spray? A baseball bat? People love guns because it is easy to pull a trigger.

    Posted via the Android Central App
    04-01-2015 10:27 AM
  19. Mooncatt's Avatar
    You can defend yourself in other ways besides guns. The ol' fisticuffs? Taser? Pepper Spray? A baseball bat? People love guns because it is easy to pull a trigger.
    People love guns because they can fend off attackers that have weapons of their own.
    04-01-2015 11:04 AM
  20. NoYankees44's Avatar
    You can defend yourself in other ways besides guns. The ol' fisticuffs? Taser? Pepper Spray? A baseball bat? People love guns because it is easy to pull a trigger.

    Posted via the Android Central App
    Of course you can, and I encourage everyone to always use the other options if at all possible. But in the situations where a firearm is needed, there is no replacement.

    Guns take physical ability out of the equation for the most part. A small man or woman can do nothing against a couple of large men. No one can do anything when cornered against a group of attackers. And of course if an attacker has a firearm of their you are completely at their mercy unless you are armed yourself.

    Sent from my XT1096
    04-01-2015 12:28 PM
  21. Scott7217's Avatar
    In most cases, it is up to the local police department to decide.
    Would a police department deny a firearms license to a woman who wants a handgun to defend herself from an abusive ex-boyfriend?
    04-01-2015 01:43 PM
  22. A895's Avatar
    People love guns because they can fend off attackers that have weapons of their own.
    That can be done with any other weapon too. Or are you saying people want guns to have shootouts in the name of "self defense"?

    Posted via the Android Central App
    04-02-2015 01:12 AM
  23. A895's Avatar
    Of course you can, and I encourage everyone to always use the other options if at all possible. But in the situations where a firearm is needed, there is no replacement.

    Guns take physical ability out of the equation for the most part. A small man or woman can do nothing against a couple of large men. No one can do anything when cornered against a group of attackers. And of course if an attacker has a firearm of their you are completely at their mercy unless you are armed yourself.

    Sent from my XT1096
    So you go Rambo and start shooting if someone else has a gun? Sounds not smart all. I think teaching non lethal methods of protecting themselves and avoidance would be better than advocating get a gun just in case you are cornered by a large group of men or get a gun pointed in your direction.

    Posted via the Android Central App
    04-02-2015 01:14 AM
  24. NoYankees44's Avatar
    So you go Rambo and start shooting if someone else has a gun? Sounds not smart all. I think teaching non lethal methods of protecting themselves and avoidance would be better than advocating get a gun just in case you are cornered by a large group of men or get a gun pointed in your direction.

    Posted via the Android Central App
    If someone else is threatening your life, it is acceptable under law to respond with lethal force in order to neutralize the threat.

    That being said, training is everything. 99 situations out of 100 the answer is to run away and call the police. No one that has proper self defense training will tell you any different. Your firearm is for when there is no other option.

    On of the cases where there is commonly no other option is when some ***** is waving a gun around. Every time a gun is pointed are someone, that is a immediate threat to their life. You are then able to pull your own gun before they pull the trigger and kill someone. You of course conceal your weapon though so you have the option of when to pull, if you ever do at all. That way you do not necessarily broadcast "shoot me first".

    Sent from my XT1096
    04-03-2015 08:49 AM
  25. A895's Avatar
    If someone else is threatening your life, it is acceptable under law to respond with lethal force in order to neutralize the threat.

    That being said, training is everything. 99 situations out of 100 the answer is to run away and call the police. No one that has proper self defense training will tell you any different. Your firearm is for when there is no other option.

    On of the cases where there is commonly no other option is when some ***** is waving a gun around. Every time a gun is pointed are someone, that is a immediate threat to their life. You are then able to pull your own gun before they pull the trigger and kill someone. You of course conceal your weapon though so you have the option of when to pull, if you ever do at all. That way you do not necessarily broadcast "shoot me first".

    Sent from my XT1096
    If someone is pulling out a gun, pulling out a gun yourself is stupid unless you have had proper training otherwise you can shoot someone innocent or hurt yourself. That is the issue with guns now, no proper training in self defense is actually required.

    Posted via the Android Central App
    04-04-2015 07:41 AM
30 12

Similar Threads

  1. "OK Google", Personal Results, Alarm Clock after 5.1
    By pony182 in forum Google Nexus 6
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 11-30-2016, 10:36 PM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD