It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

CT Supreme Court: Knives and Batons Also Protected by Second Amendment

page: 1
12
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:
+1 more 
posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 02:40 PM
link   
A man who was arrested for carrying a knife and billy club in his car was convicted of a crime.

The case was taken up to the Connecticut Supreme Court, and overturned.

The Court says (in this case) that dirk knifes and police batons are protected by the 2nd Amendment.

Interesting.


CT Supreme Court: Knives and Batons Also Protected by Second Amendment



The Connecticut Supreme Court has published a decision, to be “officially released” on December 23, showing their opinion that knives and batons are protected under the Second Amendment, along with firearms.

The decision came after Jason William DeCiccio was arrested for transporting “a dirk knife and a police baton … in a motor vehicle” from his former residence in Connecticut to his new residence in Massachusetts. “A jury found him guilty for two counts of having a weapon in a motor vehicle,” and he appealed the subsequent conviction.

From the CT Supreme Court’s decision on the case:


We … conclude, first, that the possession of a dirk knife and a police baton in a person’s home is protected by the Second Amendment and, second, that our statutory scheme, which categorically bars the transportation of those weapons by motor vehicle from a former residence to a new residence, impermissibly infringes on that constitutional right.






posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 02:50 PM
link   
I always carry a six inch knife on me as well as a night stick in my car. Hey....you never know!



posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 02:50 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Good for them. It's a baton, not a bazooka

S/F
edit on 22-12-2014 by Shamrock6 because: S/f



posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 02:57 PM
link   
Hey, if you are a New Black Panther, you can carry a baton outside of a polling place in Philly.....
And Eric Holder is fine with it!



posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 03:15 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

I'd be curious to see a ruling on the decades old law in pretty much all 50 states outlawing slapjacks.



posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 03:21 PM
link   
This makes sense. I mean, the "right to bear arms" doesn't mean JUST firearms. It could also mean swords, baseball bats, batons, rubber chickens, anything that might constitute a "weapon".



posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 03:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
This makes sense. I mean, the "right to bear arms" doesn't mean JUST firearms. It could also mean swords, baseball bats, batons, rubber chickens, anything that might constitute a "weapon".


It ESPECIALLY means rubber chickens!



posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 03:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
This makes sense. I mean, the "right to bear arms" doesn't mean JUST firearms. It could also mean swords, baseball bats, batons, rubber chickens, anything that might constitute a "weapon".


It ESPECIALLY means rubber chickens!



posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 03:32 PM
link   
You guys still have it pretty good (in this context) down there. In my province they just outlawed the purchase of bullet proof vests. We can't even protect ourselves with harmless objects legally anymore. A dictatorship is becoming more viable every day.



posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 03:52 PM
link   
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

A quality rubber chicken can do some damage. Maybe more appropriate for interrogations though.



posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 04:53 PM
link   
I do not think this is a wise ruling. I am all for being able to carry protection but this seems like a way to get a list of what is approaved arms. imo this is stretching the 2nd to reach further into the realm of what can be banned. Those listed are not arms as previously defined by scotus they are weapons and fall under a different class. Now muzzle loaders will be banned from being sold in current form of no licensing. This just opens the door to limit you in the future because these items may be legal now but will be illegal in the future.



posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 05:11 PM
link   
The laws are so farcical it's ridiculous anyway.

Let's imagine a couple of scenarios:

If you are transporting a "billy club", it's illegal in some states but if you're transporting a baseball bat, ax handle, piece of lead pipe, 2x4, or anything else that can be used to hit someone in the head... nobody will give it a second glance.

If you are transporting a Bowie knife, it is illegal in some states but if you're transporting a machete, hatchet, lawnmower blade, 10" chef's knife, or any other sharpened piece of steel that isn't explicitly a knife... again, nobody will give it a second glance.

Most legislation is based on emotion, not logic.



posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 07:28 PM
link   
Aren't sticks and knives pretty much what helped humans survive the ice age?
What next? Are they going to try to outlaw rocks?



posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 07:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
This makes sense. I mean, the "right to bear arms" doesn't mean JUST firearms. It could also mean swords, baseball bats, batons, rubber chickens, anything that might constitute a "weapon".


Don't forget Bazookas, Flamethrowers, Grenades, Brass Knuckles, Molotov Cocktails, and TNT.

I love the second amendment. It opens itself up to interpretation so nicely.



posted on Dec, 23 2014 @ 04:10 PM
link   
can not get a search warrant?
just get them moving house.
you get to search it all!

to right they can Not do that.



posted on Dec, 23 2014 @ 05:09 PM
link   
The 19th century meaning of the noun "arms" means a weapon that can be carried in one's arms. SCOTUS upheld this yet certain portable weapons have been made illegal such as a shoulder fired SAM. Weapons of extreme destructive force are not considered "arms" even though that may be carried completely in ones arms. Legal weasel words got that in and around the 2nd amendment (but I must admit, thankfully).



posted on Dec, 23 2014 @ 06:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Answer




posted on Dec, 23 2014 @ 08:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: deadeyedick
I do not think this is a wise ruling. I am all for being able to carry protection but this seems like a way to get a list of what is approaved arms. imo this is stretching the 2nd to reach further into the realm of what can be banned. Those listed are not arms as previously defined by scotus they are weapons and fall under a different class. Now muzzle loaders will be banned from being sold in current form of no licensing. This just opens the door to limit you in the future because these items may be legal now but will be illegal in the future.


That will be challenged in court. Certain accessories for weapons should also be just as protected as that weapon if adhering to the intent of the law. It's just a matter of needing to present that case.

Do note that many anti gun advocates instead argue that people should carry a knife. That seems like an admission right there by the anti second amendment people that it applies to more than guns.


originally posted by: tkwasny
The 19th century meaning of the noun "arms" means a weapon that can be carried in one's arms. SCOTUS upheld this yet certain portable weapons have been made illegal such as a shoulder fired SAM. Weapons of extreme destructive force are not considered "arms" even though that may be carried completely in ones arms. Legal weasel words got that in and around the 2nd amendment (but I must admit, thankfully).


Computer code printed in a book was at one point considered a weapon, the encryption known as PGP. It was eventually overturned on First Amendment grounds but there was no shortage of Second Amendment arguments too. I think we've pretty well established that it means more than just guns.
edit on 23-12-2014 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2014 @ 08:57 PM
link   
In Michigan with a CPL I can carry a firearm but not a knife over 3 inches. They did away with the CCW just for this reason.



posted on Dec, 23 2014 @ 11:11 PM
link   
I think we are seeing the initial stages of their 2012 gun control laws being challenged. After sandyhook Connecticut went postal on guns laws, making them one of the most restrictive in the nation.

Its an interesting ruling.. Usually states will have a law that specifically defines what a firearm is. Even more so since you need a permit to purchase and a permit to carry.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<<   2 >>

log in

join