Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 11-12-2010, 5:11 PM
Notblake's Avatar
Notblake Notblake is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 512
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default Tasers considered a loaded firearm in CA

Having trouble finding the reference to a case decision where a Taser was ruled to be a loaded firearm because it fires a projectile capable of dealing great bodily injury or death.

(California .... sigh....)
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 11-12-2010, 5:18 PM
GrizzlyGuy's Avatar
GrizzlyGuy GrizzlyGuy is offline
Gun Runner to The Stars
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Northern Sierras
Posts: 5,469
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

See here:

Quote:
"[A] Taser is a firearm and can be a loaded firearm within section 12031." (People v. Heffner (1977) 70 Cal.App.3d 643, 652 [139 Cal.Rptr. 45].)
And here:

Quote:
See also People v. Heffner (1977) 70 Cal.App.3d 643, 652. ("To summarize, we conclude that a Taser is a firearm and can be a loaded firearm within section 12031 [California’s "carrying a loaded firearm in public" law]. In other words, the question presented for determination, whether section 12031, subdivision (a) applies to the weapon known as a ‘Taser’ is answered in the affirmative.")
__________________
Gun law complexity got you down? Get the FAQs, Jack!

Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 11-12-2010, 5:33 PM
Bobula's Avatar
Bobula Bobula is offline
Calguns Addict
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Amador County
Posts: 8,975
iTrader: 147 / 100%
Default

How is a taser a firearm?
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 11-12-2010, 5:52 PM
Notblake's Avatar
Notblake Notblake is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 512
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GrizzlyGuy View Post
See here:



And here:
Thank you very much GrizzlyGuy This was hard information to dig up, is it true that this classification is no longer valid? that there was a re-classification in the mid ninties?
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 11-12-2010, 6:10 PM
GrizzlyGuy's Avatar
GrizzlyGuy GrizzlyGuy is offline
Gun Runner to The Stars
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Northern Sierras
Posts: 5,469
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Notblake View Post
Thank you very much GrizzlyGuy This was hard information to dig up, is it true that this classification is no longer valid? that there was a re-classification in the mid ninties?
It still says the same thing in the latest edition of the CALCRIM Jury Instructions, so I don't think anything has changed:

Quote:
Taser
“[A] Taser is a firearm and can be a loaded firearm within section 12031.”
(People v. Heffner (1977) 70 Cal.App.3d 643, 652 [139 Cal.Rptr. 45].)
__________________
Gun law complexity got you down? Get the FAQs, Jack!

Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 11-12-2010, 6:11 PM
mymonkeyman mymonkeyman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,051
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Old tasers used smokeless powder and are activated by an explosion. That's why People v. Heffner classified them as a firearm for purposes of 12031 (the relevant definitional statute required "explosion or other combustion").

New tasers (such as the C2 or x26c) use compressed gas, which is not an explosion or other combustion. That is why they are generally not believed to be firearms. Certainly, if new tasers were firearms for 12031, it would seem so would airsoft guns, paintball guns, and any number of things which launch projectiles by compressed gas.
__________________
The above does not constitute legal advice. I am not your lawyer.

"[T]he enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table."
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 11-12-2010, 6:17 PM
BigFatGuy's Avatar
BigFatGuy BigFatGuy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Compton, CA
Posts: 1,877
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mymonkeyman View Post
Certainly, if new tasers were firearms for 12031, it would seem so would airsoft guns, paintball guns, and any number of things which launch projectiles by compressed gas.
The funny thing about a statement like that, a pro-2a reads it and says "makes sense, tasers are cool", an anti reads it and says "oh yeah! we can ban paintball guns too!"
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 11-12-2010, 6:27 PM
Notblake's Avatar
Notblake Notblake is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 512
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobula View Post
How is a taser a firearm?

"A firearm is any device designed to be used as a weapon, from which a projectile is expelled or discharged through a barrel by the force of any explosion or other form of combustion. [A firearm also includes any rocket, rocket-propelled projectile launcher, or similar device containing any explosive or incendiary material, whether or not the device is designed for emergency or distress signaling purposes."

This was the definition that was used to prosecute.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 11-12-2010, 6:54 PM
thebronze's Avatar
thebronze thebronze is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Sack of Tomatoes
Posts: 921
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The old Tasers were completely different from the Tasers of today. No jurisdiction that I know of, considers today's Tasers a firearm.


FUD
__________________
Retired Mil & former Cop

Semper Fi!

Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 11-12-2010, 7:03 PM
Notblake's Avatar
Notblake Notblake is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 512
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thebronze View Post
The old Tasers were completely different from the Tasers of today. No jurisdiction that I know of, considers today's Tasers a firearm.


FUD
Your input is appreciated however calling this conversation FUD is not, we are having a conversation in attempts to better understand the confusing laws of our state. Calling this FUD implies that there is a bias by some party in this conversation towards making someone make an unreasonable decision based on Fear, Uncertainty, or Doubt. I'm not trying to make anyone stop carrying a Taser, nor is anyone in this thread. I am all for our 2A rights, I am also all for breeding a more clear knowlege of the laws we have.

The propellent used in new Taser products is not the same as those used in older Taser products, this makes them legal. Thank you to those in this thread who have helped me with this.

=)
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 11-12-2010, 7:34 PM
winnre's Avatar
winnre winnre is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: IE, Southern CA
Posts: 9,236
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

You can even carry today's tasers concealed without a permit.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 11-12-2010, 7:38 PM
thebronze's Avatar
thebronze thebronze is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Sack of Tomatoes
Posts: 921
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GrizzlyGuy View Post
See here:



And here:

Still FUD, no matter how much you say it isn't.
__________________
Retired Mil & former Cop

Semper Fi!

Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 11-12-2010, 7:44 PM
Joe Joe is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sac
Posts: 5,703
iTrader: 31 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thebronze View Post
Still FUD, no matter how much you say it isn't.
No it isn't. An older style taser(which if made at any given point in time would still exist today) IS a firearm. That's not FUD, that's a fact.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 11-12-2010, 7:47 PM
Notblake's Avatar
Notblake Notblake is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 512
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

"Fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD) is a tactic of rhetoric and fallacy used in sales, marketing, public relations,[1][2] politics, propaganda and trolling. FUD is generally a strategic attempt to influence public perception by disseminating negative and dubious/false information designed to undermine the credibility of their beliefs."

from wikipedia


not FUD
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 11-12-2010, 7:56 PM
thebronze's Avatar
thebronze thebronze is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Sack of Tomatoes
Posts: 921
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe View Post
No it isn't. An older style taser(which if made at any given point in time would still exist today) IS a firearm. That's not FUD, that's a fact.
Oh, you mean the Taser that hasn't been used in almost 20 years?
__________________
Retired Mil & former Cop

Semper Fi!

Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 11-12-2010, 8:22 PM
MP301's Avatar
MP301 MP301 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Now in Las Vegas NV
Posts: 4,174
iTrader: 48 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Notblake View Post
Your input is appreciated however calling this conversation FUD is not, we are having a conversation in attempts to better understand the confusing laws of our state. Calling this FUD implies that there is a bias by some party in this conversation towards making someone make an unreasonable decision based on Fear, Uncertainty, or Doubt. I'm not trying to make anyone stop carrying a Taser, nor is anyone in this thread. I am all for our 2A rights, I am also all for breeding a more clear knowlege of the laws we have.

The propellent used in new Taser products is not the same as those used in older Taser products, this makes them legal. Thank you to those in this thread who have helped me with this.

=)
Thanks for bringing this up. For some reason, some people have come to see any error, however innocent, as FUD. I dont know why this is, but it is irritating.

Folks, you look stupid when you use terms or words improperly. Can we please pay closer attention and educate ourselves a bit before playing internet commando?

That is all
__________________
Any Questions about Front Sight memberships or specific information about attending, Feel Free to send me a PM!
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 11-12-2010, 8:26 PM
GrizzlyGuy's Avatar
GrizzlyGuy GrizzlyGuy is offline
Gun Runner to The Stars
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Northern Sierras
Posts: 5,469
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thebronze View Post
Still FUD, no matter how much you say it isn't.
I didn't say anything about FUD, nor did I post any. The jury instructions are the same today as they were in the past. They don't say "must be a loaded firearm" they say "can be a loaded firearm". The means by which the projectile is expelled is the obvious differentiator.

Perhaps I erred in assuming that participants in a firearms forum would actually know what a firearm is. The police sometimes get confused on this subject, so I'll have to be more careful next time.
__________________
Gun law complexity got you down? Get the FAQs, Jack!

Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 11-12-2010, 9:12 PM
greg36f greg36f is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,693
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I am a TASER instructor and a TASER armorer...Trained at TASER industries in Az and I am a full time Leo......Modern TASER that use compressed gas are NOT FIREARMS,,,,,,That is why they are designed to use compressed gas...To avoid that classification.....
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 11-12-2010, 9:54 PM
Notblake's Avatar
Notblake Notblake is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 512
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GrizzlyGuy View Post
I didn't say anything about FUD, nor did I post any. The jury instructions are the same today as they were in the past. They don't say "must be a loaded firearm" they say "can be a loaded firearm". The means by which the projectile is expelled is the obvious differentiator.

Perhaps I erred in assuming that participants in a firearms forum would actually know what a firearm is. The police sometimes get confused on this subject, so I'll have to be more careful next time.
Thank you for your help in this thread Grizzly in the facts department you are no.1!

also I like your avatar =P
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 11-12-2010, 9:56 PM
Utha Schleigle's Avatar
Utha Schleigle Utha Schleigle is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: LB
Posts: 595
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

The new design TAZERs - I can see they are not a firearm.

Are there any requirements as in - Training coures and cert cards to carry one??? IE as with pepper spray.

Carry anythang and any LE will check your tempature. Airsoft included.
__________________
PLEASE WEAR EYE PROTECT & PROTECTIVE GEAR IN SHOP!!!!!! You can order another part from from manufacturer, but you can't order another finger or eye from your mother & father.

***This DOES NOT constitute GOOD or SANE legal - professional gunsmithing - psychiatric MD - tax - accounting -gardening advice. Please contactact qualified a professional in their repective specialties.*** AWHHH go ahead and mix match specialities that could be funny!!!!!
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 11-12-2010, 10:06 PM
Notblake's Avatar
Notblake Notblake is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 512
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Did tasers 30 years ago have a barrel? do current ones?
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 11-12-2010, 10:12 PM
stitchnicklas's Avatar
stitchnicklas stitchnicklas is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: riverside,ca
Posts: 6,804
iTrader: 24 / 100%
Default

the tazer knockoffs from the gunshow that run 130+ are gunpowdered charged...jfi
__________________
able to find wholesale pricing on many firearm related items,accessories and clothing send a message to find that special item you are looking for.
pm me for details on anything i know how to find almost any wholesale item cheap,i am a 01 FFL & business owner https://www.facebook.com/pages/Nickl...0933899?ref=hl
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 11-12-2010, 10:20 PM
J-cat J-cat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Orange County
Posts: 5,954
iTrader: 56 / 100%
Default

just make sure you don't add a silencer and a collapsible stock, or mess with the trigger to make it full auto...
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 11-13-2010, 1:01 AM
Joe Joe is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sac
Posts: 5,703
iTrader: 31 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thebronze View Post
Oh, you mean the Taser that hasn't been used in almost 20 years?
Yup. The same taser which the links in the op were referring to...
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 11-13-2010, 6:31 AM
GrizzlyGuy's Avatar
GrizzlyGuy GrizzlyGuy is offline
Gun Runner to The Stars
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Northern Sierras
Posts: 5,469
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Notblake View Post
Thank you for your help in this thread Grizzly in the facts department you are no.1!

also I like your avatar =P
You're welcome! FYI, here are a lot of other facts about Thomas A. Swift’s Electric Rifle. And here is the CPSC memo documenting ATF's ruling that the Public Defender model is a firearm.

Glad you like my avatar, it is Johnny Depp playing Raul Duke ("Master of Weaponry") in 'Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas'. That was the funniest book I ever read as a kid and pretty much anything by Hunter S. Thomas was hilarious including this:

Quote:
Weapons are my business. You name it and I know it: guns, bombs, gas, fire, knives and everything else. Damn few people in the world know more about weaponry than I do. I’m an expert on demolition, ballistics, blades, motors, animals — anything capable of causing damage to man, beast or structure. This is my profession, my bag, my trade, my thing. . . my evil specialty.
__________________
Gun law complexity got you down? Get the FAQs, Jack!

Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 11-13-2010, 7:41 AM
Utha Schleigle's Avatar
Utha Schleigle Utha Schleigle is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: LB
Posts: 595
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Notblake View Post
Did tasers 30 years ago have a barrel? do current ones?
Device does not need a BARREL to be a firearm.

There was a pistol like device at the Gun Show years ago that lanched a projectile on a track. The projectile had a rocket charge in the rear and was ignited by electricity. This was intended as a leathal weapons and was quickly considered a firearm.

"LESS CHANCE" of being lethal or probably going to be leathal device is not issue but propulsion type.

Thank GODD we are not in ENGLAND where they regulate the power or {foot pounds and feet per secound} of air guns - wrist rockets - length of cooking knives.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

To carry TAZER probably comes down to intendeded purpose.

Carry as a part of your job description - on your uniform belt. Security SCMOE

Carry while you jogg or bicycle in your fanny pack. Excercising LADY.

Carry conceiled under your shirt in an ally behind Hollywood Park Casino. DUMBY that will have legal problems soon or worsche.
__________________
PLEASE WEAR EYE PROTECT & PROTECTIVE GEAR IN SHOP!!!!!! You can order another part from from manufacturer, but you can't order another finger or eye from your mother & father.

***This DOES NOT constitute GOOD or SANE legal - professional gunsmithing - psychiatric MD - tax - accounting -gardening advice. Please contactact qualified a professional in their repective specialties.*** AWHHH go ahead and mix match specialities that could be funny!!!!!
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 11-13-2010, 7:47 AM
Andy Taylor Andy Taylor is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Colorado Rockies
Posts: 1,368
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thebronze View Post
Oh, you mean the Taser that hasn't been used in almost 20 years?

Yes, that is what they are talking about.
__________________
"Although personally I am quite content with existing explosives, I feel we must not stand in the path of improvement." Winston Churchill

“Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: First a right to life, secondly to liberty, and thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can” Samual Adams
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 03-06-2013, 1:48 PM
hkfan hkfan is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 31
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The question just came up as to whether or not a taser is a firearm for the purposes of relinquishing all firearms under a restraining order. People v. Heffner indicates that it is considered as such, while others have indicated that this should not apply to modern Tasers using a compressed gas as a propellant.

I don't see why the reasoning used in People v. Heffner could not be extended to include modern Tasers using compressed gas in spite of the logic that you can't have a firearm without fire. Has there been any change in case law that would further clarify the legal status of the Taser?

I did notice this civil case http://rt.com/usa/taser-internationa...nia-court-618/
but haven't turned up any further info yet.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 03-06-2013, 2:51 PM
winnre's Avatar
winnre winnre is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: IE, Southern CA
Posts: 9,236
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

__________________
"If Jesus had a gun he would be alive today"-Homer Simpson
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 03-06-2013, 3:24 PM
epilepticninja's Avatar
epilepticninja epilepticninja is offline
misanthrope
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: In a van, down by the river...
Posts: 3,584
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

^^rofflecopter
__________________
"People are fed up with the NRA."

- Gavin Newsom
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 03-06-2013, 3:50 PM
Tincon's Avatar
Tincon Tincon is offline
Mortuus Ergo Invictus
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 5,067
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hkfan View Post
I don't see why the reasoning used in People v. Heffner could not be extended to include modern Tasers using compressed gas in spite of the logic that you can't have a firearm without fire.
That was not the reasoning used in Heffner. Heffner reasoned that as the Taser used an "explosion" to launch the projectiles, it was a firearm. As the modern Taser uses a variance between the relative gas pressure in a pressurized cylinder and atmospheric pressure to launch the barbs, there is no explosion, and no firearm. Heffner cannot not apply to the Modern Taser.

Now, that said (and the above is what I would argue), the case law HAS NOT changed. In fact, as recently as 2012 in People v. Ortiz, the court cited Heffner to justify its conclusion that the Taser WAS A FIREARM.

My opinion on Ortiz is that counsel for the defendant(s) in that case, really screwed up big time. Reading the opinion it does not seem like they questioned the Taser being a firearm at all, probably based on Heffner, and their lack of understanding as to how the design has changed. However, that is the state of things. Be careful out there, don't consent to searches, don't talk to the police, get a good lawyer immediately.

The above is not legal advice.
__________________
My posts may contain general information related to the law, however, THEY ARE NOT LEGAL ADVICE AND I AM NOT A LAWYER. I recommend you consult a lawyer if you want legal advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship exists or will be formed between myself and any other person on the basis of these posts. Pronouns I may use (such as "you" and "your") do NOT refer to any particular person under any circumstance.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 03-06-2013, 4:14 PM
hkfan hkfan is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 31
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Cool. Thanks! That was just what I was looking for. Now this necro thread can retire for another 800 and some odd days :-)
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 03-06-2013, 4:15 PM
littlejake littlejake is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Калифорния
Posts: 2,130
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

So, is the M26C Taser a firearm or not?

__________________
Life Member NRA and 2A Foundation. Member FPC.
My posts are my own opinions and do not reflect those of any organization I am a member of.
Nothing I post should be construed as legal advice; if you need legal advice, see a lawyer.

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
William Pitt (1759-1806)

Last edited by littlejake; 03-06-2013 at 4:18 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 03-06-2013, 4:16 PM
winnre's Avatar
winnre winnre is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: IE, Southern CA
Posts: 9,236
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by littlejake View Post
So, is the M26C Taser a firearm or not?

Come back in 799 days.
__________________
"If Jesus had a gun he would be alive today"-Homer Simpson
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 03-06-2013, 4:20 PM
Kid Stanislaus Kid Stanislaus is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Oakdale, CA
Posts: 4,421
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by J-cat View Post
just make sure you don't add a silencer and a collapsible stock, or mess with the trigger to make it full auto...
Also avoid that shoulder thing that goes up, that'll hang you about every time!
__________________
Things usually turn out best for those who make the best of how things turn out.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 03-06-2013, 6:51 PM
skilletboy's Avatar
skilletboy skilletboy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,905
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Pretty soon my penis is gonna be considered a legal weapon. Probably have to either register, insure, or move it out of state.
__________________
Quote:
"If the American people come to believe that the government is no longer constrained by the law then they will conclude that neither are they." - Michael Cannon, Cato Inst. 2014

_________________________________________

Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 03-06-2013, 8:12 PM
sunborder sunborder is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,213
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Pray that they don't make you demill it by cutting it in three places.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 03-06-2013, 9:26 PM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,735
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

I don't see any substantive difference between a projectile launched by combustion vs rapid expansion of gasses.

I could easily see any anti-2A court in CA expanding the definition of firearms trivially... because it gives the legislature carte blanche to begin ridiculous and onerous regulations to yet more things with the blessing of CA's corrupt court system.

IMO the critical question is if a taser is an "arm" protected by the 2A.

That is our last and only hope against the idiocy that is the CA legislature and corrupt courts.
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall

"“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamela Harris

Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 03-06-2013, 9:29 PM
Tincon's Avatar
Tincon Tincon is offline
Mortuus Ergo Invictus
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 5,067
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by curtisfong View Post
IMO the critical question is if a taser is an "arm" protected by the 2A.

That is our last and only hope against the idiocy that is the CA legislature and corrupt courts.
There are lawyers appealing this issue to the 9th currently. Unfortunately the brief is terrible and there is zero chance of a positive outcome.
__________________
My posts may contain general information related to the law, however, THEY ARE NOT LEGAL ADVICE AND I AM NOT A LAWYER. I recommend you consult a lawyer if you want legal advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship exists or will be formed between myself and any other person on the basis of these posts. Pronouns I may use (such as "you" and "your") do NOT refer to any particular person under any circumstance.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 03-06-2013, 9:32 PM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,735
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Then this topic is irrelevant and the thread should be locked. Last one out, turn off the lights.
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall

"“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamela Harris

Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 8:28 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2016, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.