OC for ME
Regular Member
Good. Now, if they would apply the same logic they used in this case to a properly holstered handgun.
Tasers are a lethal weapon too.
-
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.
-
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.
Stun-Gun Rights Backed by Unanimous U.S. Supreme Court
- Thread starter OC for ME
- Start date
Tasers are a lethal weapon too.
Freedom1Man
Regular Member
Rape whistles are legal too...
Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk
WalkingWolf
Regular Member
They cited Heller in an unanimous decision, Heller was about handguns. I don't see how this will not carry over to firearms, this could be monumental. Even if Obama gets a liberal judge on the court it looks like the Heller decision will stand. If she was carrying the stun gun in public this will further enforce right to carry decisions. IF the court does not for some reason believe that guns are not included in self defense rights. This has to be a big disappointment for Obama, and the Beast.
Firearms Iinstuctor
Regular Member
color of law
Accomplished Advocate
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf
The Masschusetts supreme court just got a tongue lashing that they will never forget.
Last edited:
utbagpiper
Banned
And well deserved. This type of rationale is beyond belief in a nation that now has well over 100 years of solid jurisprudence on freedom of the press and speech and decades of jurisprudence on 4th amendment issues.
From the decision said:
Every media outlet in the nation should have been up in arms over this rationale being used. Sorry CNN, NBC, Washington Post, et al. But you see, Radio, Television, offset high speed printing presses, and the Internet were not in common use at the time of the First Amendment's enactment and so do not enjoy free speech protections. You may hire a town crier to distribute your news verbally, or you can print broadsheets using manual presses with movable type.
And since x-rays, thermal imaging, wireless bugs, and laser mics were not in common use at the time of the enactment of the Fourth Amendment, nothing protects the citizen from the government's use of these devices to gather whatever information they can gather.
Speaking of radios, let's also mention that since neither radios nor airplanes were known at the time the Inter-State Commerce clause was adopted, the feds have to immediately shut down the FCC and FAA.
Not an ounce of intellectual honesty or consistency among the whole the lot of Massachusetts judges. Not that that shocks me in the least.
Charles
BB62
Accomplished Advocate
Why put an apostrophe (I know, you used a quote mark) where it is: 1) inaccurate, and 2) not in the original writing?
it's = it is
its = possessive form of "it"
davidmcbeth
Banned
And Tasers are not firearms .... so all those states with firearms permit requirements would not apply to Tasers.
Hehehehe ... the antis should just stun themselves to death.
Hehehehe ... the antis should just stun themselves to death.
WalkingWolf
Regular Member
I am not so sure it would affect concealed carry of a taser, the problem with the woman was the taser was banned period. I don't think the ruling comes anywhere close to affecting permits to carry a taser, or requiring open carry, or both. Remember the decisions this one was based on did not affect permit requirements.
What it does affect is complete bans on self defense weapons. It might lead to changing the CHP in NC to a CWP. Most weapons can be carried in NC as long as they are carried open. But states like NY, this is a big loss for them.
Last edited:
utbagpiper
Banned
I cut and pasted directly from the material that "color of law" quoted. Would you be happier if I put a (sic) behind it?
I am perfectly aware of the difference between it's and its. I have no idea what it"s would mean.
And especially when it comes to quoted material, there is a reason we call 'em grammar/spelling Nazis.
Charles
Firearms Iinstuctor
Regular Member
Some more very good info on this decision full story at the link
http://www.gunwatch.blogspot.com/2016/03/supreme-court-rules-that-second.html
In a historic, but extremely short unanimous opinion, the United States Supreme Court has confirmed that the Second Amendment applies "to all instruments that constitute bearable arms,". As this is an enormous class of nearly all weapons, the decision is properly applied to knives and clubs, and nearly all firearms that have been sold in the United States. Nearly all types of firearms are more common than stun guns. From nbcnews.com:
But in an unsigned opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court Monday vacated that ruling. It said the Massachusetts court improperly found that Second Amendment protection applies only to weapons that were in common use at the time of the nation's founding.
Referring to its landmark 2008 ruling on handguns in the home, the justices said the Second Amendment applies "to all instruments that constitute bearable arms," even those not in existence at the time of the founding.
The unsigned opinion is very short. It is sparse, as noted by justices Thomas and Alito. Alito writes a much longer and more forceful opinion in concurrence. It could, and should, have gone much further. None the less, it is an enormous win for Second Amendment supporters, and it extends far beyond electric stun guns and Massachusetts. Because the opinion is short, here is the unanimous opinion, without Justice Alito's concurrence, which is at the link.
http://www.gunwatch.blogspot.com/2016/03/supreme-court-rules-that-second.html
In a historic, but extremely short unanimous opinion, the United States Supreme Court has confirmed that the Second Amendment applies "to all instruments that constitute bearable arms,". As this is an enormous class of nearly all weapons, the decision is properly applied to knives and clubs, and nearly all firearms that have been sold in the United States. Nearly all types of firearms are more common than stun guns. From nbcnews.com:
But in an unsigned opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court Monday vacated that ruling. It said the Massachusetts court improperly found that Second Amendment protection applies only to weapons that were in common use at the time of the nation's founding.
Referring to its landmark 2008 ruling on handguns in the home, the justices said the Second Amendment applies "to all instruments that constitute bearable arms," even those not in existence at the time of the founding.
The unsigned opinion is very short. It is sparse, as noted by justices Thomas and Alito. Alito writes a much longer and more forceful opinion in concurrence. It could, and should, have gone much further. None the less, it is an enormous win for Second Amendment supporters, and it extends far beyond electric stun guns and Massachusetts. Because the opinion is short, here is the unanimous opinion, without Justice Alito's concurrence, which is at the link.
utbagpiper
Banned
Depends on how the statutes are worded.
For example, Utah Statute at 53-5-7 creates a "Concealed Firearm Permit."
However, that permit exempts the holder from our laws against carrying a loaded gun in public which enables the holder to carry a fully loaded firearm OC which is otherwise not legal.
That permit also exempts the holder from our laws against carrying concealed dangerous weapons (with the exception of short barreled shot-guns and full auto firearms). The exemption is not merely for concealed firearms, but for any weapon excepting short shotguns and full autos.
The permit also exempts the holder from the State level Gun Free School Zone law, and then by extension exempts him from the federal GFSZ law.
Finally, the permit also exempts the holder from the law requiring payment of a fee ($4 or so) for running the Brady Instant Background Check when buying a gun from an FFL.
This is important, because Utah law doesn't prohibit carrying just a concealed firearm, but prohibits carrying any concealed dangerous weapon. Penalties for a loaded gun are higher than other dangerous weapons. But all dangerous weapons are covered by the ban on concealed carrying. A permit then offers an exemption.
In law, definitions matter. We could call it the FooBar Permit and not change a thing about what it does for the holder as long as the law contained the same exemptions above for a "FooBar Permit" as it currently contains for the "Concealed Firearm Permit."
In fact, our State law explicitly recognizes permits issued by all other States, regardless of specific name of the permit. So whether it is a "Pistol Carry Permit" or a "Handgun Carry License" or a "Concealed Carry Weapon Permit" or anything else, it is treated the same for purposes of carrying a self-defense weapon in Utah.
Titles, and especially short titles, are far less meaningful than what the details of the law, including definitions call out.
Charles
Last edited:
color of law
Accomplished Advocate
Each to their respective corners.
From PDF to Word to OCDO the quote mark appeared. So, for those that get their panties in a knot - blame me.....:banghead:
utbagpiper
Banned
+1
As much as I hate to admit it, a decision like this forces me to have a little respect for the liberal wing of the court in terms of respecting precedence.
Not that I have a bit of hope they will ever vote to extend the precedence to anything close to what I'd want to see. But maintaining current precedence on Heller and McDonald is no small matter as they would seem to stand as bulwarks against any kind of State or federal confiscation, at least.
Or maybe, they are just biding their time until the future makeup of the court is not in question.
Charles
BB62
Accomplished Advocate
I understand. CoL bears close watching... :uhoh:
BB62
Accomplished Advocate
But the fact that they refused to hear an RKBA case involving a circuit-split makes me very, very wary.
Last edited:
BB62
Accomplished Advocate
Calm down now! :uhoh: I wasn't referring to this case, since it's not the one "involving a circuit-split".
That case, as I said and whatever its name, they refused to hear - and therefore in disagreement with utbagpiper, I have no praise for the liberal wing of the court just because they didn't speak up this time.
Added: the case name is Powell v. Tompkins, http://blog.californiarighttocarry.org/?page_id=3479
Last edited:
pkbites
Regular Member
Um, no. We don't want to invite regulations on how our handgun is "holstered". My friend has a Clipdraw device and there are people that object to it. N.O.T.F.B how his pistol is carried.
I sometimes drive with my Glock in the center counsel of my car. Perfectly legal here, but I wouldn't want some lawyer deciding it wasn't "properly holstered".
And what about the open carry of long guns? You want they should have to be in a case?
Sorry for the nitpick, but lets be careful about the terminology we use.
OC for ME
Regular Member
We OC our handguns in a proper holster. CC however you like.
Your friends' Clipraw device (http://clipdraw.com/) is clearly intended for CC based on the company's website. If he were to adapt it for OC, which it does not appear is recommended (possible) by the company, then you nit would merit further discussion.
Can you cite any law from any state that requires that a citizen must holster his firearm while in a vehicle? I'll wait.
As to the LG comment, cases are not holsters. Besides, is there any law in any state that makes it unlawful to carry a soft/hard rifle case out in public?
Finally, your nit is with OCDO because "properly holstered handgun" is exactly the terminology used in Forum Rule (14). Your friends Clipdraw device is unsafe because there is no method to protect the trigger from being manipulated...to each their own.
WalkingWolf
Regular Member
Yes, NC unfortunately. Because NC makes no distinction between loaded, and unloaded. Unless a case has a lock on it it provides access to the carrier which without a license is a concealed weapons offense. I put my long guns in a case in the vehicle to protect them from damage, if I carry them in public they are uncased.
In Illinoise it is the reverse, any gun can be cased unloaded and is legal carry, in fact the only way to carry except for a CC permit.