Author: Greg Raven

Trained with Chuck Taylor. What else is there to know?

5 critical mistakes made by defensive gun owners

Working in the field of personal defense, I make an effort to keep informed about defensive techniques, equipment and training. The most-obvious thing I see is that there is a lot of good gear and ideas out there. However, it is also obvious that there are some folks who, though they seem well-meaning, come up with some faulty information and ideas. It is important for us not to be too critical of this sort of thing. After all, we went through the learning process to develop our defensive skills and training, too. With that in mind, here are a few defensive mistakes that occur from time to time.

Continue reading “5 critical mistakes made by defensive gun owners”

Illinois judge permanently blocks Deerfield’s ‘assault weapon’ and magazine possession bans

Today, an Illinois judge in the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit Court for Lake County, IL, ruled for gun owners in the case of Guns Save Life, Inc. v. Village of Deerfield. The order issued today permanently blocks enforcement the Village of Deerfield’s gun ban.

Continue reading “Illinois judge permanently blocks Deerfield’s ‘assault weapon’ and magazine possession bans”

US District Court strikes down New York’s ban on TASERs and stun guns

New York, being opposed to citizens having the ability to adequately defend themselves, either within our outside their homes, has had a longtime ban on the possession of electronic dart (TASER) and stun guns. Owning one is a misdemeanor and displaying or threatening to use one is a felony.

But not any more. In a decision announced today, US District Court Judge David N. Hurd has struck down the state’s ban under the Heller decision, ruling that the prohibition is a violation of the Second Amendment.

As Judge Hurd wrote …

New York’s sweeping prohibition on the possession and use of tasers and stun guns by all citizens for all purposes, even for self-defense in one’s own home, must be declared unconstitutional in light of Heller. To be clear, this conclusion does not foreclose the possibility that some restriction(s) on the possession and/or use of tasers and stun guns would be permissible under the Second Amendment. Other states have already done this. See, e.g., WIS. STAT. § 941.295(2g)(b) (permitting possession of “electric weapon” in home or place of business). New York might consider doing so as well.

Therefore, it is

ORDERED that

  1. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED;
  2. Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment is DENIED;
  3. New York Penal Law § 265.01(1), as applied to “electronic dart guns” and “electronic stun guns,” is an unconstitutional restriction on the right to bear arms; and
  4. Defendant, his officers, agents, servants, employees, and all persons in active concert or participation with the New York State Police are hereby ENJOINED from enforcing New York Penal Law § 265.01(1) as applied to “electronic dart guns” and “electronic stun guns.”

[…]

This is entirely consistent with previous rulings regarding stun guns.

Source: Dan Zimmerman, TheTruthAboutGuns.com