PDA

View Full Version : SC rules stun guns are protected by the 2nd Amendment



ParaCav
03-21-2016, 08:31 PM
Supreme Court rules against Massachusetts State Law banning stun guns. I think they are also illegal in IL, so that should go by the way side I presume. Will have to check that out.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/mar/21/supreme-court-reverses-stun-gun-conviction-massach/

cgchad
03-22-2016, 12:56 PM
Paracav, if you recall the Shephard case was combined with Moore here in IL.
Shephard was contesting the ban on conceal carry, while Moore questioned carrying a stun gun or tazer.
Both were remanded to lower courts under the Shephard ruling.
The Moore decision was never truly answered.

BennieH
03-22-2016, 01:10 PM
What I like about the ruling is that they basically killed one of the liberals favorite arguments that all newer weapons weren't covered. Since muskets were all we had at that time, those were the ONLY things protected you would hear.
In the ruling that argument was squashed.
"“The Court (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/supreme-judicial-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’ … and that this ‘Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States,” the court (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/supreme-judicial-court/) wrote, citing previous rulings from 2008 and 2010, respectively."

ParaCav
03-22-2016, 07:52 PM
Paracav, if you recall the Shephard case was combined with Moore here in IL.
Shephard was contesting the ban on conceal carry, while Moore questioned carrying a stun gun or tazer.
Both were remanded to lower courts under the Shephard ruling.
The Moore decision was never truly answered.

I checked IL laws and a stun gun is legal but requires an FOID. From what I "understand", a stun gun can be concealed carry without a ccw, but only for self protection (why else would someone want to carry one?) And there are some stun gun free areas similar to ccw laws.

cgchad
03-23-2016, 01:54 AM
I checked IL laws and a stun gun is legal but requires an FOID. From what I "understand", a stun gun can be concealed carry without a ccw, but only for self protection (why else would someone want to carry one?) And there are some stun gun free areas similar to ccw laws.
Correct about needing a FOID, incorrect about carry for the same reason you are correct about the FOID.

Ref. 720 ILCS 5/24-1 & 720 ILCS 5/24-1.6 UUW & AUUW statutes.

In a nutshell, the idiots that wrote the law group a stun gun into the same category as a firearm. Which is why you need a FOID in the first place. (Incidentally, if you want a good laugh read the pepper spray laws.)

Moore sought to have stun guns removed from the UUW & AUUW statute on the basis that it isn't a firearm.. Our wonderful courts disagreed.
It got rolled up with Shepard since she was also challenging the same statute, but on the constitutional grounds.
Shepard won, but nothing addressed Moore directly that I could find.

ParaCav
03-23-2016, 09:29 AM
In a nutshell, the idiots that wrote the law, put a stun gun into the same category as a firearm.

Roger that ........ Thank you.

guns4me
03-23-2016, 09:01 PM
What I like about the ruling is that they basically killed one of the liberals favorite arguments that all newer weapons weren't covered. Since muskets were all we had at that time, those were the ONLY things protected you would hear.
In the ruling that argument was squashed.
"“The Court (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/supreme-judicial-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’ … and that this ‘Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States,” the court (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/supreme-judicial-court/) wrote, citing previous rulings from 2008 and 2010, respectively."


It potentially invalidates ALL gun-ban laws. If that is the exact wording in the ruling, it means that the "assault"-style weapons may indeed be protected as they are "bearable" arms. Unless they somewhere later in the ruling negate the "prima facie" (at first glance and without investigation) wording. Sometimes you need to read the entire ruling before coming to a final conclusion.