Slaves Cannot Be Trusted with Tasers
The Slave Masters in New York are upset and quite worried that the peasants might be trying to protect themselves with Tasers. The New York State Attorney General is pleading with the courts to uphold a NY ban on Tasers and stun guns.
Our SWAT Fuel Warrior of the Week has a question about standardized firearms training and the validity of have one universal set of rules. Our beloved professor has been in the firearms training business for three decades and will address the rationale and issues with that very thing.
Brought to you by Silencer Shop!
Topics Covered During This Episode:
- Warrior of the Week brought to you by SWAT Fuel: Standardized Training for Firearms
- GUNSMITHS: Be on the cover of brownells catalog. Send cover worthy photos to email@example.com or post on social media using #BB70:www.prweb.com/releases
- #SlaveStateNews: NYC AG hates tasers – New York AG Claims No Right to Own Taser or Stun Gun Even in Own Home
- Oops, Court Rules for the People – Charges dropped in Caetano v. Massachusetts Second Amendment stun gun case
Free "Five Strategies" Book
Use Code "SOTG2015"
Please visit www.SilencerShop.com and take a look at what they have in stock!
Get Your Student of the Gun Tattoo Here: www.lauerweaponry.com
“New York Attorney General files response in Taser case, and no, it’s not a joke,” attorney Stephen Stamboulieh notes in response to the state’s position in the matter of Avitabile v. Cuomo. “I guess before I argue these motions on March 24, 2017, I have to figure out if the Supreme Court’s Heller opinion is binding law in New York. “
The memorandum by A.G. Eric T. Schneiderman seeks the United States District Court for Northern District of New York’s denial of an injunction to lift a state ban, citing six points for the court to consider, including the plaintiff “does not have a Second Amendment right to possess a Taser or a stun gun – even within his own home … There is a legitimate question as to whether Tasers or stun guns are even “bearable arms” [and] There is also a legitimate question as to whether Tasers or stun guns are ‘in common use…’”
Schneiderman further maintains the plaintiff “cannot make a ‘clear showing’ that they will prevail on the merits [think about that for a moment], nor can they show that they face a harm that is ‘actual and imminent, [and think about that]’” and that “there is … no ‘substantial burden’ on his Second Amendment rights [and that].” He further argues for using “intermediate scrutiny,” that is, a lesser legal review standard than “strict scrutiny.”
Forget the Second Amendment for a moment. The very thought of some “official” telling you that you may not own a stun gun, even in your home, ought to be repugnant to all good Americans. To forbid so-called “less than lethal” options from supposedly free citizens ensures those denied “permits” to carry firearms truly are being mandated into defenselessness.
As for whether or not the device is “bearable,” such an objection is absurd on its face. As for questioning whether it’s “in common use,” you’d think New York’s rulers would have heard of the NASDAQ. As for being useful for military (and thus militia) activity, the true test of “common use,” the Department of Defense seems to think so.
As for Shneiderman, we’re not only dealing with a committed oath-breaking extortionist, but a tyrant wannabe who actually had the gall to maintain the answer to New York “Only Ones” shooting bystanders is more citizen disarmament!
As for Stamboulieh, if you’re a voting member of the National Rifle Association and haven’t cast your ballot yet, he is my (only) choice for the board. Previous reports have chronicled his challenges to New Jersey carry permit denials, machine gun bans, a Freedom of Information Act filing regarding Fast and Furious “gunwalking,” and his work at getting an FBI NICS denial reversed.
You can learn more about his work in the AmmoLand Shooting Sports News archives, his website, and his blog.
In March, the Supreme Court unanimously reversed a Massachusetts high court decision that upheld the state’s stun gun ban. The Massachusetts court’s justifications for upholding the ban, the Supreme Court said, were inadequate:
The [Massachusetts] court offered three explanations to support its holding that the Second Amendment does not extend to stun guns. First, the court explained that stun guns are not protected because they “were not in common use at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment.” This is inconsistent with D.C. v. Heller’s clear statement that the Second Amendment “extends … to … arms … that were not in existence at the time of the founding.”
The court next asked whether stun guns are “dangerous per se at common law and unusual,” in an attempt to apply one “important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms,” Heller; see ibid. (referring to “the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons’”). In so doing, the court concluded that stun guns are “unusual” because they are “a thoroughly modern invention.” By equating “unusual” with “in common use at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment,” the court’s second explanation is the same as the first; it is inconsistent with Heller for the same reason.
Finally, the court used “a contemporary lens” and found “nothing in the record to suggest that [stun guns] are readily adaptable to use in the military.” But Heller rejected the proposition “that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected.”
For these three reasons, the explanation the Massachusetts court offered for upholding the law contradicts this Court’s precedent. Consequently, … the judgment of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.