- Joined
- Jan 2, 2009
- Messages
- 17,927
- Reaction score
- 10,823
- Location
- Washington State
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
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.
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.
Why do you think that criminals would give up their guns for a taser?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.
They won't. Neither will people in their homes.Why do you think that criminals would give up their guns for a taser?
Your fantasy didn't include taking away any guns.They won't. Neither will people in their homes.
But in my fantasy a whole lot less people die.
i was talking about swapping guns for tasers to keep people alive.Your fantasy didn't include taking away any guns.
I'm pro-rights.i was talking about swapping guns for tasers to keep people alive.
you pro life?
damn. so a hypothetical (that can't happen) that would save a ton of lives triggered you.I'm pro-rights.
Was there a purpose to sharing your fantasy (now hypothetical) in public?damn. so a hypothetical (that can't happen) that would save a ton of lives triggered you.
actually, that's really good to know.
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.
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.i was talking about swapping guns for tasers to keep people alive.
you pro life?
This story is from 2019 and as another poster stated it was settled with Caetano v. MassachusettsPROVIDENCE, 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.
sadly some democrat judges tend to ignore supreme court opinions until the court shoves them down the democrat judges' throatsSCOTUS settled this in 2016 in Caetano v Massachusetts.
to see who would be triggered.Was there a purpose to sharing your fantasy (now hypothetical) in public?
Isn't there a term for that?to see who would be triggered.
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.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.
investigativeIsn't there a term for that?
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.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.
three people now triggered by a comment about less people dying.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.
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.three people now triggered by a comment about less people dying.
that's very interesting.
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?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.
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.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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?