Wikipedia link
...sigh...
I’m stunned.
So, he wants the only alternative to a gun to be a gun.
Got it.
Geez. A stick is protected under 1A when used or intended to be used as “armament”.
It doesn’t matter what they hold. SCOTUS has already ruled they are protected by the 2nd amendment. Anybody in NY attempting to infringe on the rights of US Citizens to have them is subject to prosecution by the DOJ.
Another out of control foreigner “judgey”. The Feral District courts would make a great sitcom. A bunch of clowns.
If tazers aren’t arms then tazing the judge for fun isn’t assault and battery, correct? Asking for a friend...
They are Called “Stun Guns”
Not Cattle Prods or Electric Fences.
I feel stupid and contagious in a fallen world.
More legalizing crime while outlawing self defense. Population reduction.
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.
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.