Posted on 02/20/2016 11:24:03 AM PST by Red in Blue PA
DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — The Iowa Supreme Court says a stun gun, under Iowa law, is a dangerous weapon.
The court made the conclusion as it affirmed the conviction of a woman charged with carrying a dangerous weapon after police found a stun gun in her purse in 2013 during an arrest for theft at a Waterloo Walmart.
Taquala Howse, who is 25, appealed saying her small hand-held stun gun isn’t dangerous.
A district judge convicted Howse, finding the state had proven it was dangerous.
(Excerpt) Read more at wqad.com ...
>>I don’t know. Are you carrying the baseball bat ‘concealed’?<<<
Yeah, I put it down my Pants and wait for anybody to dare ask what it is.
One of Steve Martin’s Comedy routines.
When they try to rob you , Puke all over the Money and hand it to them.
Michigan is the same way, you have to have a CCW to carry one concealed. You can open carry it,though.
CC
This will not stand. For years, courts and the police have claimed that Tasers are “less than lethal” weapons. The police, especially, adore Tasers because they can use them in many circumstances where guns cannot or should not be used, and the use of blunt weapons, like billy clubs, leaves a lot to be desired.
The idea that they must be licensed will set off alarm bells in every police outfit in the state. Because the police are more than aware that if *their* Tasers are licensed, then their use of them is controlled by someone else.
And what if some bureaucrat decides that they don’t need Tasers, because he, the bureaucrat, doesn’t like them?
Having an essential, often life- or injury- saving tool taken away at the whim of some clod is *not* a good situation, as far as the police are concerned. I don’t blame them.
Right now, I expect the police union lobbyists are bending the ears of state legislators. This is about as personal as it gets.
It takes a village idiot..
I certainly would like to see one of the 2nd Amend orgs take her case and appeal it based on the fact that the stun gun is an “arm” and is covered by the 2nd amendment. Proof that it is an “arm” is that police are issued them. They may not be a lethal “FIREARM” but the 2nd Amendment doesn’t specify “Firearms” it specifically says “arms”. Such that a knife can be considered an “arm” if it is carried for that purpose.
Instead of constantly harping on and whining for more donations, the NRA and similar groups should spend a little of that donated money on cases such as this, which will set precedent and REALLY make a difference. Argue it under the existing USSC decisions that have already been made regarding the “keep and bear arms” part.
Spending huge sums of money on glossy flyers and requests for donations, or even “newsletters”, while not being a waste, could be used for pressing the legal fight in courts against restrictions on arms of any kind. You know, that “infringement” thingie the 2nd talks about.
Why leave the fight to the few pro bono attorneys to do all the heavy lifting? Hire one of the cut throat white shoe firms to make a good case. Poor Gura can’t carry it all.
“A district judge convicted Howse, finding the state had proven it was dangerous.”
There is a reason that “District courts” are often referred to as “Kangaroo or Mickey Mouse courts.” A high school diploma is not even required to be a “District Judge.”
More than once I told district Judges that I would appeal their decision to higher court on principle and they ruled in my favor just to avoid the embarrassment. Twice I turned them in to the Judicial Inquiry Review Board and had them removed from the bench.
The only good thing about them is that they cut the overload on the higher courts.
Better not carry a letter opener ...
In a warped sense I can see where a stun gun or taser can be considered more dangerous than a conventional gun. Meaning they are more apt to be abused as they are thought of as not being deadly.
Example, a few years back a national park female cop tased some old man for walking his dog where he should not have been. I personally knew of a rogue cop that liked to use a taser when no one was looking. In both cases a bullet firing gun never would have been used, but a power hungry cop can get their jollies watching people suffer and never get into trouble.
The same applies to any abusive person, cop or not.
But still, I see no need for permits for any gun. Just well enforced laws for their misuse, and it applies to cops too.
If you read the way the law is written, they are.
Same with pepper spray (though they are working to change that). People can and have died from tasers. They are not as safe as many assume them to be.
A lawyer friend of mine recommended never carrying a taser if you are permitted to carry a handgun for that reason.
Police are part of the reason for this rule.
Tasers have hurt and killed people, often when the officer was using them incorrectly. They were supposed to replace nightsticks, but the statistics are causing some people to worry they are more dangerous and legally liable.
That doesn’t matter, in that in this case, police are either exempt from licensing, or the licenses are held by their department. Police are very intent in keeping and using Tasers.
For at least a decade or two, a large number of court cases have almost always decided that Tasers are “less than lethal” weapons, no matter how many people died after being Tasered. Thus there is a vast amount of precedent available.
In no way does this court decision *directly* limit police use, only civilian use. But even that is too close for police comfort. They do not want some leftist activist in a position of power to take away one of their most important tools.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.