Posted on 04/02/2025 4:32:21 AM PDT by marktwain
Judge Eduardo Ramos, the U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of New York, has issued an Opinion & Order that a ban on stun guns is constitutional. A New York State law prohibits the private possession of stun guns and tasers; a New York City law prohibits the possession and selling of stun guns. Judge Ramos has ruled these laws do not infringe on rights protected by the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution.
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)
Prima facie means “on its face”. The Supreme Court, in the three cases of Heller, McDonald, and Caetano, has repeatedly stated the text of the Second Amendment extends to all instruments that constitute bearable arms. The statement is very clear. It goes back to the establishment of what the words in the text of the Second Amendment mean. In Heller, the meaning of “arms” is established by reference to the dictionary definition at the time:
Before addressing the verbs “keep” and “bear,” we interpret their object: “Arms.” The 18th-century meaning is no different from the meaning today.
(Excerpt) Read more at ammoland.com ...
Man, does our judiciary need an overhaul. Every Bush or Obama judge is becoming problematic.
Shocking...
Just because a weapon is not commonly possessed by the public does not remove constitutional protections from that weapon. That is obvious.
Many weapons are prohibitively expensive to own for the common man. Many have limited everyday use. A blunderbuss is of little use and expensive because they are not in common use and in low demand. Does that make it unprotected by the 2nd amendment?
Heller, 554 U.S. at 625. Therefore, Plaintiffs must show that stun guns and tasers are in “common use” today, and that they are “typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.”
Since when do constitutional rights need to be proven to be commonly used to be protected.
How does one prove that a devise is "typically possessed"?
I would guess that sales figures for tasers would show that they are in fairly wide possession by law-abiding citizens (outside NYC where they are unlawful to possess). But why would the attorneys in this case guess that those figures would be necessary to their argument?
If a law-abiding citizen possesses a lawful object for an unlawful reason it is likely the case that some law has been passed to make that purpose unlawful after that citizen came in to possession of that object.
One of my first experiences with firearms in Texas was at a party for a kid who was baptized that day. Sitting at a table with the families enjoying lunch, a few guys started talking about hunting, which later led to talk about concealed carry. What kind of gun, what caliber, how holstered, etc. As if on cue both of the quiet, sweet, elderly Grandmothers of the kid grabbed their purses and pulled out their guns to show their choice of firearm. And there it was, an example of what contributes to a safe and peaceful society. The right to protect yourself, the freedom to not be a victim. And, for those foolish enough to even think about it - don’t mess with Grandma.
I taught my kids the rules of gun safety, how to properly use, and store firearms. It’s up to them to decide if they will want a firearm of their own, but at a minimum, they understand firearms far better than any NY gun-grabbing Marxist legislator ever will.
Senor R-r-r-amos learned “constitutional” law at Harvatd and Yale. Says pretty much all you need to know about the Puerto Rican.
Liberals- taking away EVERY means of self defense for law abiding g citizens so that violent criminals can c9mmit their crimes without fear or being shot, tazed or gassed
Heck, they even prevent law abiding citizens from defending themselves properly while at the same time letting violent child rapists, murderers, violent assaulted, mentally ill criminals, etc etc etc back out into the community. Like Ted Cruz said, who in their right mind would release such dangerous people back into society to commit more crimes agaisnt citizens? That is just plain evil!
Coming next: Making a fist not protected by the 2nd Amendment.
Well, you heard the man. You kin go ahead and kill somebody--but don't you go stunnin' him!
Folks could get hurt.
Another foreign-born judge ruling on Constitutional matters.
The 2nd amendment definition of "arms" is anything that a standing army can deploy against the people. The people have a right to defend themselves with the same "arms" as is expected to be used against them.
Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist #29:
But though the scheme of disciplining the whole nation must be abandoned as mischievous or impracticable; yet it is a matter of the utmost importance that a well-digested plan should, as soon as possible, be adopted for the proper establishment of the militia. The attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate extent, upon such principles as will really fit them for service in case of need. By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist...
The only way for a militia of the people to be "little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms" is to be armed with the same weaponry as the standing army being deployed against them.
-PJ
Oops. Guess it’s a good thing I didn’t use my stun gun when I was in Queens a couple weeks ago.
Does this mean the po-po can’t carry and use them as well?
Notable rulings
On December 3, 2018, Ramos ruled that the Trump administration did not have the authority to withhold public safety grants from sanctuary jurisdictions that refuse to cooperate in immigration enforcement and that the conditions unlawfully violate the separation of powers and were arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act.
On February 26, 2020, a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit unanimously overturned the decision stating, in part, that the conditions defined in the policy “help the federal government enforce national immigration laws and policies supported by successive Democratic and Republican administrations.”
On May 22, 2019, Ramos affirmed the validity of subpoenas issued to Deutsche Bank and Capital One by two committees of the U.S. House of Representatives. The subpoenas asked for financial records relating to President Donald Trump, his adult children, and his businesses. Trump’s lawyers had asked Ramos to quash the subpoenas, but Ramos said such a request was “unlikely to succeed on the merits.”
On May 28, Ramos granted Trump’s attorneys their request for a stay so they could pursue an expedited appeal through the courts.
Controversies
Ramos came under ethical scrutiny for allegedly violating the Judicial Code of Conduct by failing to disclose financial conflicts of interests in matters he presided over.
In September 2021, the Wall Street Journal published an article reporting that more than 131 federal judges had violated their ethical obligations by presiding over matters where they had a financial interest.
Ramos was prominently highlighted in the Wall Street Journal piece for presiding over a lawsuit between Exxon Mobil and TIG Insurance Co. over a pollution dispute, while he owned upwards of $50,000 of Exxon stock.
Ramos ruled in favor of Exxon Mobil, ordering TIG Insurance Co. to pay Exxon Mobil $28 million in damages as well as $8 million in interest.
Ramos again came under controversy in March 2022, when he failed to disclose a financial interest in a case he was presiding over.
Investors had sued major banks, including Barclays and HSBC, accusing them of rigging the foreign bond market. Ramos dismissed the investors’ complaint.
It was later revealed that he held stock in one of the defendant banks. He subsequently recused himself from the matter, which was taken over by Judge Valerie E. Caproni; she reconsidered the dismissal of the investors’ complaint against the banks and allowed the case to proceed.
Does this ruling cover man portable flame throwers? Asking for a friend😆😂🤪
No, it is limited to stun guns.
Most states, however, do not prohibit the ownership of man portable flame throwers.
Does this ruling cover man portable flame throwers? Asking for a friend😆😂🤪
A record like that does not suggest His Honor is not demonstrating the “good Behaviour” called out in Article III, Section 1.
Thank you for sharing that. Why isn’t this Judge in jail already?
Technically they are a collection of step up transformers, capacitors & such electronic parts.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.