![1458680263684[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/TQkBwnS.png "1458680263684[1].png")
Does this mean that NYC/NJ will have to allow Tazer concealed/open carry?
>>29354279
I carry a real gun like a normal person, so I just hope this ruling can be used to justify personal ownership of more modern weapons as they come out.
>>29354315
Oh don't worry about that. I'm sure it will be.
No that wasnt sarcasm
>>29354315
you got to think about all the women who say they could never kill someone they now can carry a non lethal option
Any word on how this effects CA/NYC/NJ?
>>29354338
NJ conceal carry permits still unobtanium, just now applied to tazers. Need pistol purchase permit to buy one. Just my prediction.
>>29354358
JUST
Chemical weapons are not useful in warfare.
Hmm
>>29354279
New York, Jersey and the other shitholes are going to fight it, but they'll lose since the Supreme Court already ruled on it.
It might take a few years, but the libtard states will be forced to act, and we'll be a little more free on that day. It's just fucking nuts that a decent Taser like the X26 costs upwards of $1,600.
>>29354701
Why so expensive?
read the whole ruling, they include modern firearms there as well.
The
>muh muskets
argument was just thrown out entirely thanks to this ruling
>>29354723
Oh, Wow. WOW. Now THAT IS SOMETHING.
>>29354733
>The court decision stated that any bearable arm was protected by the 2nd amendment. 8 to 0 in favor.
>BEARABLE ARMS
this is huge, anon.
>>29354733
>Second amendment not limited to weapons created during the founders time
>Second amendment not limited to only weapons "useful in warfare"
based fucking SCOTUS
>>29354751
NFA abolished when?
>>29354783
soon anon
>>29354770
Is SCOTUS arming us for the Islamic invasion?
>>29354722
The Taser alone is like $1,000. Throw in additional cartridges, back up batteries and other shit and you're looking at $1,300 minimum for the X26C.
https://buy.taser.com/collections/weapons/products/x26c?variant=1042167993
>>29354789
goddamn, why is it so expensive though? I mean 1k for the gun itself?
>>29354798
Yea $999. I don't know why it's so expensive. I mean, the batteries aren't even rechargeable. Once it's dead, you need to buy a whole new Taser battery.
>>29354798
>>29354822
>why
>why wouldn't you gouge people for every cent you can with your life saving device?
I mean, I think capitalism is the only way, but I also think humans show themselves to be trash more often than not.
>>29354833
I guess, but I mean why buy a stun gun when you can just get a normal pistol or whatever for half the price, fuck, mace even.
>>29354833
You are an entitled one aren't you
>>29354315
it will
Oh my god. This just made my day. Awesome.
>>29354733
>bearable
How much does a nuke weight? I'm sure there's some powerlifters that could "bear" one.
>>29354861
I think theentire premise of tazers, and people they market to is that it "saves lives." People who'd otherwise get shot, and give protection to people who cannot (legally) use firearms or willfully won't (because said moralities).
So if that's the angle, yeah it is scummy as fuck to price gouge on your supposedly important life saving technology.
On the flip side, I think Hi-Point is actually walks their talk, which is a good message. "Everyone should be able to defend themselves, regardless of finances."
>>29354993
Fuck my engrish btw, second language but it is still no excuse for it.
>>29354993
That isn't even close to the purpose of tazers, they are there to give a less lethal option when lethal force is not necessary
Technology is expensive, if you can't afford it don't blame the producer
>>29354279
tazer barrel undermount when?
>>29355041
>they are there to give a less lethal option when lethal force is not necessary
He paraphrased that by saying
>people who'd otherwise get shot.
>>29354993
They'll come down in value as competition increases because of this ruling. People are going to go out and buy the best taser for the cheapest price.
>>29355077
>They'll come down in value as competition increases because of this ruling. People are going to go out and buy the best taser for the cheapest price.
ehh I doubt it. While this might be a pretty significant ruling, it's not really going to attract people to tasers at all. Sure, there might be some people who were looking to get one but were prohibited by their states, but the general population doesn't really give a shit about tasers.
>>29354953
Don't get so excited.
> 2016: SCOTUS declares tazers and other LTL devices as protected under 2A
> 2020: Hillary begins second term, sets sights firmly on disarmament
> 2022: Now with a firm Liberal majority, SCOTUS declares that firearms are not necessary for personal protection because LTL technology exists
> 2024: Senate and Congress are now majority Liberal along with SCOTUS, the Republican party is long dead, having been replaced with squabbling factions incapable of any coherent decision making..... without any opposition, the Liberal federal government drives the last nail in the coffin of gun ownership.
Mark my words.
>>29355296
fuck you that ain't tru
>>29354279
>Second Amendment covers guns not made during its inception
>Second Amendment covers firearms not strictly for use for warfare
How the fuck can machine guns be illegal then?
>>29355341
Me in the back.
>>29355355
How indeed.
>>29354279
>California bans ALL lethal firearms
>"You can own a taser, so your 2nd Amendment rights are still intact."
>nothing can be done
>>29355355
Sets an interesting president.
>>29355383
the only reason sawn off shotguns remained illegal during the supreme court challenge was they were not "standard military equipment".
Not only are machine guns standard military and police equipment now in virtually every army (including our own), but the courts now rule we have a right to own any bearable arms and guns that are not "used in warfare".
I don't see how the courts could challenge that seeing in every situation, machine guns should be legal.
>>29355296
I wouldn't count on it, considering that even the two judges appointed by Obama were in agreement with the majority opinion.
>>29355392
Nope - clear violation of Heller. They'll probably try something retarded like that, but it won't stand.
>>29354382
FUCK
>>29354783
>mfw /k/ meet up after NFA abolished
>mfw a dozen auto ARs, AKs, Saigas, and Glocks firing at full auto at the same time
>>29355416
Hillary
>>29355355
They're not. They just have bunch of bogus taxes and fees to make them stupid expensive. But fun fact gatling guns are unregulated because they don't use gas pressure to cycle and fire.
>>29355457
They are permanently banned except for around 200 thousand grandfathered. We are not allowed to own NEW machine guns which under SCOTUS logic is illegal because all bearable arms are protected AND ANY arms useful BOTH for warfare and not for warfare purposes are also protected.
This also should make assault weapon bans unconstitutional because semi autos are also bearable arms.
>>29355488
The way they went about banning machineguns isn't legally a ban, though. They just closed the registry, so you can't register any new guns. Effectively, it's a ban on new machineguns, but it'd probably hold up in court far better.
>>29355404
I'd really like some sawn-offs without that sawn-off tax. My pistols are infinitely more useful for any nefarious things you could imagine, I just want one for the cool factor.
I have heard some interesting thing about bird hunting with short barreled shotguns though, apparently you can get them to perform very well with the right shell (which means cup really). A backpack SBS that works well for bird hunting would be so perfect, you have no idea.
>>29355527
A ban is a ban. everyone is forbidden from ever obtaining a newly made machine gun which according to scotus, would be a protected firearm because it fits into any bearable arm that can be useful and not useful to the purposes of warfare.
I would argue that the fact we will never get the benefit of any advances to machine gun technology is another infringement on your rights to maintain a well regulated militia because our arms would be outdated and potentially not as effective. You could even argue that case now as the government has a vast supply of machine guns that no citizen can have access to own.
>>29355404
I wanna be able too in few months or year from now be able too buy a sawn off or a Super Shorty from a gunstore.
>>29355566
I definitely agree, but you have to look at it from the perspective of a very moderate to left-leaning SCOTUS.
The closest thing I can think of to a precedennt that would be in our favor is when the courts struck down one of the original attempts to ban marijuana (require a license to own, but then make it effectively impossible to get the license), but the way they went about banning them makes it hard to equate.
>>29355527
>hurr durr what is a duck test
You don't know how litigation works dumbass
Believe it or not, despite what TV has led you to believe, the American legal system is not built on a series of "loopholes" and ";^)" faces
>>29355596
I hate the fucking web of lies. Obviously if you don't have legal standing to ban something outright, then circumventing your lack of legal standing to have the same effect is inherently and morally the same thing as banning it outright. This is also inherently and morally illegal.
But we like to let our government pick and choose when it follows its own laws.
>>29355355
it's setting a precedent
>>29355418
>ammo companies now resort to buying dirt/backstops from ranges to keep up with lead demand
>gun ranges become the new powerhouse business because money coming in from both ends
>increased advertisement and larger use sways public opinion
I like this option
>>29354279
>NYC/NJ will have to allow Tazer concealed/open carry?
This may just me being cynical, but it would not surprise me at all if they just reclassify Tazers or stun guns as "handguns" which would require a pistol permit (hard to get) and needs a permit to carry (basically impossible to get) because their definition of allowing citizens to bear arms is after jumping through mountains of enhanced background checks/paperword and banning 90% of all firearms available
On the other hand, I would love to see how the stupid politicians would react to this.
>>29355404
so it begins?
>>29355428
Eww no.
>>29355655
Yes(my new CC in six months)
>>29355670
Didn't know Bill broswed /k/.
>tfw potentially on the verge of having all bullshit gunlaws repealed
>tfw my dad died two weeks ago so he won't get to see it
If it happens Imma buy a tommy gun and dedicate the first drum to you, pappy.
>>29355675
A WW2 flare pistol?
>>29355697
I can't wait
if it happens first thing i'm doing is buying a gun, my cuck state of MA makes CC hard to get, I will be able to CC finally if it happens.
>calculated political move meant to put gun-rights advocates at ease and open them up to inviting another liberal activist justice to the bench
>>29354991
What ever the nuke rifle was called there you go
>>29355765
Bullshit. The pro2a precedents are piling up and it's going to be very difficult to overturn.
>>29355724
It was a mock up double barrel pistol I think.
>>29354279
Neat.
I wouldn't advise carrying someone that is.....you know.....one shot but I like that we have the option.
>>29354751
>8 TO 0
>>29354861
>>29354991
Nigga little nukes are real. We had nulcear 155mm arty shells in the cold war, and fucking backpack nukes. It can be done friend.
>Be me
>Average /fit/izen, /k/ommando
>Walking through downtown Detroit when suddenly a wild sheeeeeit eater appears.
>sheeeeit eater smacks lips wildly and says "ayo hol up, gib me all ya money, or i'll shank you whitey".
>I've been waiting for this moment my entire life
>muhdick.jpg
>Slowly set backpack on ground, open topflap revealing small tactical nuclear device I've been conceal carrying. Begin detonation sequence.
>Nigglips starts chanting that I need to hand over the xbox in the bag, little does me know it's too late now.
>Smile as nuclear fire erupts around us, removing the dindu population of Detroit, and becoming the first case of self defense by nuclear fire.
>Mfw.
>>29355697
We'll all dump one off the fallen brothers who didn't make it to see that glorious day.
>>29355829
>yfw guns laws are getting better in the United States while getting somehow even worst in Australia.
>>29355810
I broke my wrist looking at that
>>29355842
For every sunrise there must be a sunset.
>>29354722
What is Supply And Demand?
>>29355818
it was a complete blowout
>>29355355
Machineguns havent ever been illegal in the US. Access to them is just extremley restricted. (Its a defacto ban that skirts the 2nd amendment by never truly declaring them illegal, but at the same time makes it so difficult to get one that they might as well be)
Seriously. Find 15 grand under your couch cushions and go buy an UZI, you totally can. You just need to make sure
1:Its registered before 1986
2: That you are transferring it through a licensed class 3 NFA dealer
3: That your state even allows it
4: that you apply for the 200 dollar cuckstamp
Honestly, part 4 is the catch, gonna be a 9 to 12 month process. So its not ILLEGAL. Its just really difficult, expensive, and time consuming. Defacto ban, but not full out ban.
>>29355937
You forgot find someone with a pre 86 uzi that's willing to sell.
>>29355937
Isn't there some legal word for skirting laws to do something illegal anyway? Because that's what this shit is.
>>29356030
You mean a de facto ban? Obeying the letter of the law whilst shitting all over the spirit?
>>29356030
I used it several times. Defacto.
Examples of a defacto ban include the NFA, and early attempts at prohibition in which alcohol wasnt illegal, it was just illegal to sell. (Saloons began selling $2 crackers that came with free booze and the teetotallers went nuts and finally illegalized the act of consuming, posessing, creating, AND selling alcohol)
Early attempts at illegalizing weed (you could at one time legakly buy it, but only if you bought a tax stamp, and golly, they just never got around to actually making the stamps!)
Another defacto ban would be saying something is legal but only if you pay a tax, and then make the tax 3000 percent.
Actually, somebody tried to challenge the NFA claiming that the ban on new manufuturing has artificially inflated the prices of machineguns and argued that such a thing actually constituted an illegally non-democratically decided defacto tax.
This would of course be illegal, as taxes must be set by a representative body and cannot just be declared, sadly it also wasnt true, since only $200 of that price was actually a tax that WAS legally imposed.
And there isnt actually anything inherently illegal about a defacto ban. Originally the 1936 $200 tax stamp on machineguns was a defacto ban since the 99.9 percent of americans would have never been able to afford a $200 tax at the time.
Its..... complicated, but basically its almost against the constitution, but not fully. And there are very few politicians or judiciary members who want to be associated with machine guns becoming every day garden variety legal again, so virtually none have ever supported a lifting of NFA laws.
>>29354751
Looks to me that SCOTUS ruling was against the reason Mass used in its own ruling
'Weapons that didn't exist when 2nd amendment was inacted are not covered'
The 'all bearable arms' part was in a letter from 2 Justices after the ruling, not part of it. I don't think it can set precedent.
>>29356259
>The 'all bearable arms' part was in a letter from 2 Justices after the ruling, not part of it
>I don't think it can set precedent
Why do you think they even bothered with the letter then, are they trying to incite something or what?
>>29356218
Well if that is the case what is stopping politicians from just putting semi autos as NFA firearms and closing the registry?
If it is legal to do, as you said, then they technically wouldn't be "banned"?
>>29356280
Inciting my dick to get hard
>>29356304
With slippery slopes you fall just a little at a time.
Public opinion is the only thing stopping them
>>29356259
if they didn't want to sets a precedent they never should have done it to begin with, it looks like my states cuck government just inadvertently saved the 2nd
thanks cuck gov
>>29356304
The bigger question is once they pull suppressors off of the NFA registry will the entire regulatory scheme begin to fall apart?
>>29356304
actually they tried putting handguns in the NFA - that's why the size restrictions are so arbitrary.
>>29354751
Wait is my right to own a tank cannon still protected?
>>29356259
It can't. They didn't hear the case they just voted to vacate the ruling.
It was more of a recognition of the current state of affairs rather than a statement of guiding judicial principals and facts.
What it does show is that Heller is not going to go away anytime soon.
>>29354723
Oh my God, that's fantastic. Sauce pls or at least the supreme case name?
This ruling makes my dick diamonds. My only regret is Scalia wasn't around to leave his little legal flourish. Based Supreme Court protecting the constitution. It's getting harder and harder to justify the NFA
>>29356481
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/caetano-v-massachusetts/ will contain it i think but i am not the person you're replying to
>>29355296
Don't forget after Hillary appoints three justices it'll be 7 ginsbergs v 2 Thomas
>>29354798
A lot more complicated than a gun Id imagine. When you're dealing with that much electricity Iassume you need some good hardware in it, much more than just the machined bits and chuncks of metal in, say a Bersa or Glock. Not an expert here just givin my opinion
>>29356516
Who would Trump appoint?
>>29354991
Davy Crockett
>>29356304
The fact that there are fairly powerful pro gun lobbies, and the fact that gun companies are pretty big buisiness with lots of money doesnt hurt. Plus public opinion is very important to getting elected and keeping your career, the left has found that gun control attempts tend to motivate the right into organizing, and they see it as simply easier to talk a big game and not actually legislate anything than raise uproar and suddenly face opposition to literally anything else they are doing.
>>29356420
No. Look at prohibition, making alcohol legal again didnt suddenly mean you could begin running a distillery without paying taxes and getting registered as a licensed distiller.
>>29356426
Yeah, can you imagine colt 1911's going for 20,000 grand on top of a $200 stamp and a year long application process?
>>29356537
someone pro-gun
>>29356498
thanks for covering for me anon, I don't have the sauce on this device
>>29356537
hopefully someone who can perpetuate the impotent liberal rage long past the God Emperor's reign is over.
Maybe that Shkreli faggot if we're going for maximum assblasting.
>>29355239
>prohibited in their state
Fucking HOW?!?! How can a state POSSIBLY do that to it's citizens. I mean sure the Gun argument can be made when you live in a city like Portland, with safe space needing, ignorant, trust-fund lefties running around everywhere...but LTL. Jesus
>>29356537
Hopefully Ted Cruz and / or Jeanine Pirro
>>29355697
I really hope this happens, although there are chacks and balances in place on SCOTUS, so this COULD get over-ruled. If we do get mass deregulations, im getting a sawed off shotty, and an auto sear for my AR, and probably make an A2 build out of it like pic related.
![P5270104[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/xmVMBUY.jpg "P5270104[1].jpg")
>>29356742
>that mag
>not an actual m16 marauder
>>29356498
Thanks a bunch anons. Also OP, great thread!
>>29356857
thats ok
>>29354279
Neat, hopefully between this and TASER's original patents expiring we'll see other companies get into the market and actually innovate or push prices down instead of just sit on their hands for a years and not try to advance the technology they created.
>>29355832
I don't think weapons that inherently target more than one person or that target property as part of their design would be protected under heller, considering the justification is self defense.
>>29356742
>although there are chacks and balances in place on SCOTUS
It's very, very tough to undo anything SCOTUS rules. If you don't like your ruling, your options are:
>try to impeach critical judges
>make a constitutional amendment to counter the ruling
So far, there's only been one (unsuccessful) impeachment of a SCOTUS judge (all the way back in 1805), and the only incident of making an amendment to counter a SCOTUS ruling was with the establishment of the income tax.
>>29357003
I wouldn't doubt it, there's a lot of potential to market this. I can't wait until the electrolaser comes out! An irl phaser will be a nice addition to my fun collection.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolaser
>>29357554
>>29357003
Shit, meant for >>29356974
>>29354279
But tasers nasty and hurtful! If you allow tasers to hide behind some obsolete colonial era relic, pretty soon, they will start making assault tasers!
