Judge: RI’s stun gun law violates 2nd Amendment

[Moon]

PROVIDENCE, R.I. (WPRI) — A federal judge has decided that Rhode Island’s law against residents owning stun guns and Tasers is unconstitutional.

U.S. District Court Judge William Smith ruled in favor of two people who filed a lawsuit against the state in 2019.

Lawsuit looks to legalize stun guns, Tasers in RI
The Rhode Island residents claimed they wanted to purchase stun guns for self defense, but state law prohibits them from doing so.

In his decision, Smith said the state’s ban on stun guns violates the Second Amendment, which allows Americans the right to bear arms.

Judge: RI’s stun gun law violates 2nd Amendment

A federal judge has decided that Rhode Island’s law against residents owning stun guns and Tasers is unconstitutional.

www.wpri.com

================

Didn’t realize Rhode Island and Hawaii banned stun guns for the general public. After reading the judge’s comments I agree with his reasoning.

 

[ttwtt78640]

PROVIDENCE, R.I. (WPRI) — A federal judge has decided that Rhode Island’s law against residents owning stun guns and Tasers is unconstitutional.

U.S. District Court Judge William Smith ruled in favor of two people who filed a lawsuit against the state in 2019.

Lawsuit looks to legalize stun guns, Tasers in RI
The Rhode Island residents claimed they wanted to purchase stun guns for self defense, but state law prohibits them from doing so.

In his decision, Smith said the state’s ban on stun guns violates the Second Amendment, which allows Americans the right to bear arms.

Judge: RI’s stun gun law violates 2nd Amendment

A federal judge has decided that Rhode Island’s law against residents owning stun guns and Tasers is unconstitutional.

www.wpri.com

================

Didn’t realize Rhode Island and Hawaii banned stun guns for the general public. After reading the judge’s comments I agree with his reasoning.

I don’t agree with the judge’s “reasoning”.

In his decision, Smith said the state’s ban on stun guns violates the Second Amendment, which allows Americans the right to bear arms.

“The blanket ban on possession of stun guns … extends into the home and therefore implicates the core Second Amendment right,” Smith wrote.

Smith also explained in his decision that a stun gun “doesn’t implicate the safety of the public at large” in the same way that a semiautomatic weapon does because a stun gun is only effective at close range.

The state, according to Smith, failed to provide evidence that the ban on stun guns protects the public, and that the abuse of stun guns is a real problem.

What, exactly, does “only effective at close range” have to do with the 2A rights?

Why should “the abuse of” (criminal use of?) any gun or type of gun make it OK for the state to ban it? The 2A has never been used (abused?) to protect violent criminal activity involving any gun or type of gun.

That judge should be asked to explain how a gun being “semiautomatic” has any impact on its effective range and if a handgun (revolver or pistol) being the most common type of “abused” (criminally used?) gun can serve as a valid state interest in banning that type of gun.

 

[Rucker61]

SCOTUS settled this in 2016 in Caetano v Massachusetts.

 

[CaughtInThe]

If I can give everyone today, that's gonna shoot and kill an American, a taser instead I would be overjoyed.

Think how many fewer people would die.

 

[Rucker61]

If I can give everyone today, that's gonna shoot and kill an American, a taser instead I would be overjoyed.

Think how many fewer people would die.

Why do you think that criminals would give up their guns for a taser?

 

[CaughtInThe]

Why do you think that criminals would give up their guns for a taser?

They won't. Neither will people in their homes.

But in my fantasy a whole lot less people die.

 

[Rucker61]

They won't. Neither will people in their homes.

But in my fantasy a whole lot less people die.

Your fantasy didn't include taking away any guns.

 

[CaughtInThe]

Your fantasy didn't include taking away any guns.

i was talking about swapping guns for tasers to keep people alive.

you pro life?

 

[Rucker61]

i was talking about swapping guns for tasers to keep people alive.

you pro life?

I'm pro-rights.

 

[CaughtInThe]

I'm pro-rights.

damn. so a hypothetical (that can't happen) that would save a ton of lives triggered you.

actually, that's really good to know.

 

[Rucker61]

damn. so a hypothetical (that can't happen) that would save a ton of lives triggered you.

actually, that's really good to know.

Was there a purpose to sharing your fantasy (now hypothetical) in public?

 

[Noodlegawd]

I don’t agree with the judge’s “reasoning”.



What, exactly, does “only effective at close range” have to do with the 2A rights?

Why should “the abuse of” (criminal use of?) any gun or type of gun make it OK for the state to ban it? The 2A has never been used (abused?) to protect violent criminal activity involving any gun or type of gun.

That judge should be asked to explain how a gun being “semiautomatic” has any impact on its effective range and if a handgun (revolver or pistol) being the most common type of “abused” (criminally used?) gun can serve as a valid state interest in banning that type of gun.

I didn't read his opinion, but you seem to be missing his point.

He seems to be using handguns as a reference point. It is beyond dispute that they are protected by 2A, and it's absurd to ban stun guns because they present much less of a risk to the public.

 

[jamesrage]

i was talking about swapping guns for tasers to keep people alive.

you pro life?

Pro-life is the opposition to abortion being legal or more specifically opposition to elective abortion being legal. Saying trading firearms for tazers is akin to saying if you are pro-choice then you should support my choice to have a tazer or a firearm of my choice.

 

[jamesrage]

PROVIDENCE, R.I. (WPRI) — A federal judge has decided that Rhode Island’s law against residents owning stun guns and Tasers is unconstitutional.

U.S. District Court Judge William Smith ruled in favor of two people who filed a lawsuit against the state in 2019.

Lawsuit looks to legalize stun guns, Tasers in RI
The Rhode Island residents claimed they wanted to purchase stun guns for self defense, but state law prohibits them from doing so.

In his decision, Smith said the state’s ban on stun guns violates the Second Amendment, which allows Americans the right to bear arms.

Judge: RI’s stun gun law violates 2nd Amendment

A federal judge has decided that Rhode Island’s law against residents owning stun guns and Tasers is unconstitutional.

www.wpri.com

================

Didn’t realize Rhode Island and Hawaii banned stun guns for the general public. After reading the judge’s comments I agree with his reasoning.

This story is from 2019 and as another poster stated it was settled with Caetano v. Massachusetts

​

Caetano v. Massachusetts - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In a per curiam decision, the Supreme Court vacated the ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.[7] Citing District of Columbia v. Heller[8] and McDonald v. City of Chicago,[9] the Court began its opinion by stating 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 "the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States".[6] The term "bearable arms" was defined in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) and includes any "“[w]eapo[n] of offence” or “thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands,” that is “carr[ied] . . . for the purpose of offensive or defensive action.” 554 U. S., at 581, 584 (internal quotation marks omitted)."[10]

The Court then identified three reasons why the Massachusetts court's opinion contradicted prior rulings by the United States Supreme Court.[1] First, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they "were not in common use at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment", but the Supreme Court noted that this contradicted Heller's conclusion that Second Amendment protects "arms ... that were not in existence at the time of the founding”.[11] Second, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns were "dangerous per se at common law and unusual" because they were "a thoroughly modern invention", but the Supreme Court held that this was also inconsistent with Heller.[12] Third, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they were not "readily adaptable to use in the military", but the Supreme Court held that Heller rejected the argument that "only those weapons useful in warfare" were protected by the Second Amendment.[13]

 

[TurtleDude]

SCOTUS settled this in 2016 in Caetano v Massachusetts.

sadly some democrat judges tend to ignore supreme court opinions until the court shoves them down the democrat judges' throats

 

[CaughtInThe]

Was there a purpose to sharing your fantasy (now hypothetical) in public?

to see who would be triggered.

 

[Rucker61]

to see who would be triggered.

Isn't there a term for that?

 

[CaughtInThe]

Pro-life is the opposition to abortion being legal or more specifically opposition to elective abortion being legal. Saying trading firearms for tazers is akin to saying if you are pro-choice then you should support my choice to have a tazer or a firearm of my choice.

okay, so that's two people who are triggered by my mild comment about wishing people used tasers instead of guns (so less people would die) when all of us know that i can't trade a taser for every gun in the US.

that's some weird stuff.

 

[CaughtInThe]

Isn't there a term for that?

investigative

 

[Chillfolks]

If I can give everyone today, that's gonna shoot and kill an American, a taser instead I would be overjoyed.

Think how many fewer people would die.

It would be better if you could just say “Hocus Pocus” and everyone get along perfectly. Then there would be no need for a gun or a taser and how many fewer people would die then.

 

[CaughtInThe]

It would be better if you could just say “Hocus Pocus” and everyone get along perfectly. Then there would be no need for a gun or a taser and how many fewer people would die then.

three people now triggered by a comment about less people dying.

that's very interesting.

 

[Chillfolks]

three people now triggered by a comment about less people dying.

that's very interesting.

You seem trigger my solution would save more lives than yours. Why do celebrate death so much? Wouldn’t everyone getting along be a good thing? Why are you so eager to dismiss that desire and continue confrontation. Why are you so opposed to peace? Why does this concept trigger you in such a way? Wanting a better outcome is not being triggered it’s pointing out the desire for a better world than you can think of.

 

[Terryj]

The SCOTUS opinion will hold up until we have a "mass tasering" at a public school. Then the left will cry out for a complete ban on all tasers.

 

[CaughtInThe]

You seem trigger my solution would save more lives than yours. Why do celebrate death so much? Wouldn’t everyone getting along be a good thing? Why are you so eager to dismiss that desire and continue confrontation. Why are you so opposed to peace? Why does this concept trigger you in such a way? Wanting a better outcome is not being triggered it’s pointing out the desire for a better world than you can think of.

so if nobody had a gun and everybody had a taser (in the hypothetical that i mused about) there would be a bunch of gun deaths?

🤣🤣🤣🤣



hey, at least we have Ukraine as an example that all one needs is a rifle or handgun to defend one's self/property.

 

[Chillfolks]

so if nobody had a gun and everybody had a taser (in the hypothetical that i mused about) there would be a bunch of gun deaths?

🤣🤣🤣🤣



hey, at least we have Ukraine as an example that all one needs is a rifle or handgun to defend one's self/property.

If you would take a second to actually read what I wrote you would noticed I said it save more lives than your utopian ideal. Tasers are less than lethal options but can and do still result in death. Being shot by a taser and dying from it is still a form of gun death. So yes in your fantasy a bunch more gun deaths would happen than in mine. You again seem a little triggered that your idea would allow for more gun deaths than mine of having neither a gun or taser would.