Judge rules banning tasers is unconstitutional

xmanhockey7 · Apr 22, 2011

BAY CITY — When a Bay City party store worker wore a “stun gun” on the job for personal protection, he was charged with a crime.

A Bay County judge ruled today, though, that the Michigan law prohibiting possession of stun guns is unconstitutional.

http://mobile.mlive.com/advannarbor...A167251D259549960DD47D63?contentguid=ZVHQCJS9

TheQ · Apr 22, 2011

\o/ if it is upheld, I'll by a Tazer.

ETA: I wouldn't have thought a judge in that liberal area of the state would have had it in them to do this. My hat's off...

OC4me · Apr 22, 2011

I don't know if it would be easy to get a copy of the Judges ruling (legal opinion), but I'd be curious how he argued that a (name of object or device) constituted an 'arm' under the Second Amendment. This is very good news by the way. How the Judge came to that conclusion is very important and could have a lot of implications.

Is anybody able to find a link to that Judge's opinion (assuming that it is published online)?

TheQ · Apr 22, 2011

OC4me said:
I don't know if it would be easy to get a copy of the Judges ruling (legal opinion), but I'd be curious how he argued that a (name of object or device) constituted an 'arm' under the Second Amendment. This is very good news by the way. How the Judge came to that conclusion is very important and could have a lot of implications.

Is anybody able to find a link to that Judge's opinion (assuming that it is published online)?

Go to the Court in Bay City. It's on the corner of Second and Washington.

Go to the public access computer there, enter the defendant name, get the docket number, and ask the clerk for the file for that number.

xmanhockey7 · Apr 22, 2011

OC4me said:
I don't know if it would be easy to get a copy of the Judges ruling (legal opinion), but I'd be curious how he argued that a (name of object or device) constituted an 'arm' under the Second Amendment. This is very good news by the way. How the Judge came to that conclusion is very important and could have a lot of implications.

Is anybody able to find a link to that Judge's opinion (assuming that it is published online)?

Scalia ruled that it includes weapons used in defense. Which would include: guns, knives, and even tasers. He also concluded that to keep and bear means to have and carry the arms. This judge said that bcause of the supreme court decisions that an all out ban on handguns is unconstitutional that an all out ban on tasers is the same.

stainless1911 · Apr 22, 2011

I don't care for tazers, but I am 100% behind anyone's right to use them. Any weapon is supposed to have A2 protection, weather its primitive, like a sock full of stones, a bat, or something more sophisticated like a modern firearm or tazer.

Michigander · Apr 22, 2011

Now if only we can get a similar ruling about carrying any and all types of edged weapons...

stainless1911 · Apr 22, 2011

Could serve for a precedent right?

Glock9mmOldStyle · Apr 22, 2011

INFINITY + 1 for this ruling based in law and not "feelings".

Good Lord, we need this Judge to move to LANSING!

stainless1911 · Apr 22, 2011

No, the judge needs to move to some other country, or perhaps the ward with timothy.

autosurgeon · Apr 22, 2011

stainless1911 said:
No, the judge needs to move to some other country, or perhaps the ward with timothy.

Reading comprehension would be a help :cuss:

MKEgal · Apr 22, 2011

Wow! Someone who understands that 'arms' aren't limited to guns & knives.
Wonder if this ruling could help us over here in WI, where posession of an 'electric weapon' is a felony.
Yep, we can openly carry a gun with no gov't interference, but having a non-lethal line of defense is a felony.

TheQ · Apr 22, 2011

Glock9mmOldStyle said:
Good Lord, we need this Judge to move to LANSING!

+100

stainless1911 · Apr 22, 2011

MKEgal said:
Wow! Someone who understands that 'arms' aren't limited to guns & knives.
Wonder if this ruling could help us over here in WI, where posession of an 'electric weapon' is a felony.
Yep, we can openly carry a gun with no gov't interference, but having a non-lethal line of defense is a felony.

So much for those microchip equipped brady guns.

xmanhockey7 · Apr 22, 2011

I would like to see tasers be legal with no permit necessary. Personally I'd rather tase than shoot if I had the choice between the two. Of course I would see each one being a valid tool to use.

stuckinchico · Apr 22, 2011

More options is always a benefit .

stainless1911 · Apr 23, 2011

Tazers only work on one assailant. I carry enough ammo for a maximum of 46.

xmanhockey7 · Apr 23, 2011

stainless1911 said:
Tazers only work on one assailant. I carry enough ammo for a maximum of 46.

Which is why I would carry both. In a situation of one threat that I don't see a need to use lethal force but more than my fists I would tase.

budlight · Apr 23, 2011

xmanhockey7 said:
Which is why I would carry both. In a situation of one threat that I don't see a need to use lethal force but more than my fists I would tase.

Nice to see a judge that doesn't have a narrow mind!

Glock9mmOldStyle · Apr 23, 2011

stainless1911 said:
Tazers only work on one assailant. I carry enough ammo for a maximum of 46.

46 that's all? Lightweight! 34[1st mag&one in pipe]+33+33+33[3 spares] = 133 Hahaha...
Just kidding with you Stainless.

Judge rules banning tasers is unconstitutional

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Banned

Campaign Veteran

Banned

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran