Stun-Gun Rights Backed by Unanimous U.S. Supreme Court

Discussion in '2nd Amendment' started by Walkingwolf, Mar 21, 2016.

  1. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/stun-gun-rights-backed-unanimous-134130410.html

    This could be a huge decision for the RKBA, an unanimous decision based on a handgun ruling, IMO, is big. I don't see how this cannot be applied to firearms carried for self defense. Obama must be crying in his beer after he thought he saw victory with Scalia's death.
     
  2. Bull

    Bull Just a Man Supporting Member

    Great first step to recognizing people's right to protect themselves
     

  3. Very important is that the court reaffirmed that arms not in existence when the 2nd was written are covered under that 2nd and arms that have no military use are covered.

    It is a good day.

    "The Court has held that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 582 (2008), and that this “Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States,” McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 750 (2010)."
     
  4. lklawson

    lklawson Staff Member

    Was this in the ruling or the Concurrence?

    Peace favor your sword,
    Kirk
     
  5. Justice Alito wrote the decision, but there was no squawking from any of the other justices. The decision was 8 to zip. IMO the citations, and decision are extraordinary. If this follows through to firearms it will mark history. Sad day for gun grabbers.
     
  6. What is interesting on the case was that the woman was homeless at the time of her arrest. So there can be no claim that the decision was only for in the home. Another interesting point is the stun gun was concealed in the woman's purse, which she let police search. Her mistake gave us a big win, but she should have forced them to get a warrant.

    Seems there was some kind of shoplifting accusation which the woman was innocent of. So of course she let the police search her purse, and got arrested anyway.

    This is also interesting because the stun gun was concealed, and she had no permit. This may, or may not help establish constitutional carry, depending on how the courts look upon it. It does not seem she was charged with a concealed weapon, which is how many states would have charged her.
     
  7. Ruling.

    FWIW. Concurrence as a legal term doesn't enter into this case. Concurrence means need to prove the simultaneous occurrence of both "guilty action" and guilty mind" to make it something a crime. I think you meant dicta.
     
  8. I think that he meant the concurring opinion as in agreeing to the decision, but for a different or additional reason.
     
  9. Front page of my local (libtard) paper: "Supreme Court suggests Second Amendment protects carrying a stun gun"
    How did the editors come up with "suggests" after that ruling??? Argh.
     
  10. lklawson

    lklawson Staff Member

    Yes, I know. What I was asking is specifically about that quote. There was a very short SCOTUS decision written and what's reported as a separate 10 page Concurrence Alito and Thomas. I was asking did this quote come from the written decision or from the Concurrence.

    <nods>

    Peace favor your sword,
    Kirk
     
  11. lklawson

    lklawson Staff Member

    Thanks.

    From the article (which was all I had time to read when I posted the question because I had to go get my daughter from daycare, feed & get her changed, then go teach Judo, being sure to pick up the other instructor on the way):

    Two justices, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, issued a 10-page concurrence that used far more sweeping language, saying the Massachusetts ruling “poses a grave threat to the fundamental right of self-defense.”

    I still haven't yet had time to read either and maybe won't today at all anyway. I still have to do actual work which my job requires, then I teach Western Martial Arts tonight.

    Peace favor your sword,
    Kirk
     
  12. lklawson

    lklawson Staff Member

    I was quoting from the referenced article.

    When I get time, I'll read the decision and whatever it was that Alito and Thomas wrote. But I won't have time for a while unless something goes a lot quicker today than I expect.

    Peace favor your sword,
    Kirk
     
  13. ArmyScout

    ArmyScout Supporting Member

    3,960
    279
    IL
    In IL stun gun laws are almost identical to all Gun and ccw laws. And an FOID is required. The FOID has been challenged 4 times, the most recent was 2010? or 2012?, but the NRA has chosen not to take it to the SC.
     
  14. mreyner

    mreyner Member

    Thanks

    This is outstanding, thanks for keeping us old folks updated.:)
     
  15. Kiln

    Kiln Member

    3,092
    4
    That's because if the FOID ruling goes the wrong way it'd set a dangerous precedent and tons of nanny states would likely follow suit.
     
  16. ArmyScout

    ArmyScout Supporting Member

    3,960
    279
    IL
    That's true, but nothing is keeping them following suit now. They have had 47 years since it was passed in IL, to pass a similar law. I am surprised States like NY and CA, etc etc haven't done so.
    The main reason the NRA and ISRA won't take it past the Fed appeals Courts, is $$$$$$. Very expensive to take challenges to the SC, and the NRA is not sure they can win.