Daily Archives: March 8, 2015

Published February 23, 2015

A flurry of firearm and Second Amendment-related bills introduced in the Nevada legislature have already generated plenty of controversy, according to The Las Vegas Review-Journal.

This could be the year of the gun, as Republicans, who are in the majority in the Legislature for the first time in decades, see a chance to enact Second Amendment measures supported by many of their constituents.

At least nine bills directly relating to firearms have either been introduced or are being drafted. And there are related measures, including a bill that would extend justifiable homicide to carjacking situations, and another that would allow foster parents who are in law enforcement or who have concealed weapons permits to carry loaded firearms.

First there was a dust-up between Senate Democrats and Republicans over a GOP-backed gun measure that includes domestic violence provisions that Democrats said fell short of what is needed.

Then Assemblywoman Michele Fiore, R-Las Vegas, generated some controversy over comments she made in a New York Times story about her bill to allow those with concealed weapons permits to carry their weapons on college campuses.

If these young, hot little girls on campus have a firearm, I wonder how many men will want to assault them, she said.

To read more from The Review-Journal click here:

View post:
This could be year of the gun in Nevada

Massachusetts' ban on the private possession of stun gunsan "electrical weapon" under the statutedoes not violate the Second Amendment right to bear arms, the state's top court has ruled.

The decisionsays(PDF) that the US Constitution's framers never envisioned the modern stun-gun device, first patented in 1972. The top court said stun guns arenot suitable for military use, and that it did not matter whether state lawmakers have approved the possession of handguns outside the home.

Nevertheless, we note that stun guns deliver a charge of up to 50,000 volts. They are designed to incapacitate a target by causing disabling pain, uncontrolled muscular contractions, and general disruption of the central nervous system.... It is difficult to detect clear signs of use and misuse of stun guns, unlike handguns. Stun guns can deliver repeated or prolonged shocks without leaving marks. ...The Legislature rationally could ban their use in the interest of public health, safety, or welfare. Removing from public access devices that can incapacitate, injure, or kill a person by disrupting the central nervous system with minimal detection is a classic legislative basis supporting rationality. It is immaterial that the Legislature has not banned weapons that are more lethal. Mathematical precision by the Legislature is not constitutionally required.

The court, ruling in the case of a Massachusetts woman caught with stun gun, said the stun gun is a "thoroughly modern invention" not protected by the Second Amendment, although handguns are protected.

Moreover, although modern handguns were not in common use at the time of enactment of the Second Amendment, their basic function has not changed: many are readily adaptable to military use in the same way that their predecessors were used prior to the enactment. A stun gun, by contrast, is a thoroughly modern invention. Even were we to view stun guns through a contemporary lens for purposes of our analysis, there is nothing in the record to suggest that they are readily adaptable to use in the military. Indeed, the record indicates "they are ineffective for . . . hunting or target shooting." Because the stun gun that the defendant possessed is both dangerous per se at common law and unusual, but was not in common use at the time of the enactment of the Second Amendment, we conclude that stun guns fall outside the protection of the Second Amendment.

The decision, the most recent analysis of the Second Amendment by any top court, comes as all types of and manner of weapons are being constructed at home via 3D printing technology. The latest showdown about those weapons surfaced last month, when FedEx refused to ship a box that makes homemade metal semi-automatic rifles.

The Massachusetts case, decided last week, concernedJaime Caetano, who lives in one of five states making it illegal for private citizens to posses stun guns. She appealed her 2013 conviction, on Second Amendment and self-defense grounds, claiming she had a right to the weapon to protect herself from what she said was an abusive father of her children. The penalty for breaching the law carries up to a 2.5-year maximum jail term. She was caught with the device outside a grocery store after allowing the authorities, who were looking for a shoplifter, to search her purse.

The law in question, the court said, forbids the private possession of a"portable device or weapon from which an electrical current, impulse, wave or beam may be directed, which current, impulse, wave or beam is designed to incapacitate temporarily, injure or kill" except by specified public officers or suppliers of such devices, if possession is "necessary to the supply or sale of the device or weapon" to agencies utilizing it.

In2008, the US Supreme Court, in a decision known as Heller(PDF), overturned a District of Columbia statute and ruled that a banon handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense." Now, every state allows people to carry weapons of sorts, some with or without permits.

The Massachusetts top court concluded that the woman could have applied for a permit to carry a concealed weapon, like a handgun instead.

View post:
You have the right to bear arms, not electrical arms, court declares

Citizens have the right to bear arms, but if they choose to own guns, they should do so safely, according to a resolution affirming the Second Amendment that the Clackamas County Commission will vote on this Thursday.

County Board Chairman John Ludlow and Commissioner Tootie Smith brought the resolution to the board in a work session last week, saying they have been deluged by emails from gun-rights activists. They were concerned about the spector of legislation forcing law-enforcement officers to knock on the doors of recently bereaved widows to collect their husbands guns.

Calling such fear mongering about bothering widows ridiculous, Commissioner Jim Bernard was among the elected county officials who support some gun-safety proposals being considered by the Oregon Legislature, which aims to prevent another Clackamas Town Center shooting and slow the increasing frequency of school shootings.

I dont think you should be able to bring your gun into Justice Court, Bernard said.

In a lengthy impassioned speech, Commission Martha Schrader argued for the historical importance of the American Revolution and the increasing availability of guns in the 21st century. Schrader said her passion for the issue came from losing her 12-year-old nephew, who shot himself in the head.

It destroyed my sisters life, it destroyed her husbands life, she said. That gun should have been locked up.

In addition to affirming the Second Amendment, Schrader said the resolution should include a list of gun-owner responsibilities to keep themselves and others safe.

Clackamas County Sheriff Craig Roberts said in a statement to the commission that he supports the Second Amendment, but the sheriffs office emphasizes responsible gun ownership.

Commissioner Paul Savas agreed, pointing to the sheriffs offices Public Safety Training Center, where the public can go to target practice and learn about responsible gun ownership.

We do promote safety, and that ought to be added (to the resolution), Savas said.

Read more here:
Clackamas County: Responsibility for safety comes with gun ownership

The state's highest court has ruled that Massachusetts' ban on the possession of stun guns does not violate the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The Supreme Judicial Court, in a unanimous decision on Monday, upheld the 2011 conviction of Jamie Caetano in Ashland. Police investigating a shoplifting report found a stun gun in the woman's purse.

Caetano told police that she carried the weapon as self-defense against an abusive former boyfriend and argued in her appeal that she had a constitutional right to carry it.

The justices disagreed, saying that a stun gun -- which can administer incapacitating electrical shocks -- is not the type of weapon that is subject to Second Amendment protection.

The court said it was up to the state Legislature to determine whether such weapons should be legal in Massachusetts.

Continued here:
High court upholds state ban on stun guns