• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

MI Court: stun guns covered by 2nd Amendment

scot623

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
1,421
Location
Eastpointe, Michigan, USA
So, we can carry tazers and other weapons without fear of prosecution, or a CPL?

What about 227, and 231a? Wouldn't the same logic apply to handguns?

Yes. You should carry any and all weapons, blades, blackjacks, swords, brass knuckles, batons without a CPL. This opinion will save you from prosecution.
 

hammer6

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2008
Messages
1,461
Location
Florida
it also applies to handguns...and it also said that an open carry ban is unconstitutional....
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
So what you are saying is the principle of the balancing of powers has been sucessfully carried out? The Legislature wrote a law that the court found unconstitutional. The Legislature did not like that, so wrote a new law that worked around the unconstitutional provisions of the old law. Everyone is now waiting (mostly without bated breath) to see if anybody will challenge the consitutionality of the new law.

Did I miss anything?

stay safe.
 

PDinDetroit

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2009
Messages
2,328
Location
SE, Michigan, USA
So what you are saying is the principle of the balancing of powers has been sucessfully carried out? The Legislature wrote a law that the court found unconstitutional. The Legislature did not like that, so wrote a new law that worked around the unconstitutional provisions of the old law. Everyone is now waiting (mostly without bated breath) to see if anybody will challenge the consitutionality of the new law.

Did I miss anything?

stay safe.

Yes, the ordering and principles behind the new law do not match what you have stated above. I do not believe that the legislature knew how this decision was going to play out and was considering making tazers legal for CPL Holders anyways, which was voted in and signed into law well in advance of this ruling. I would believe that an analysis of this ruling against the new tazer law would be appropriate. In someone's dubious spare time...
 
Top