specific weapon laws

[A-C]

I'm attempting to find the legal status of specific weapons in particular states.

However, entering into google "legal (insert weapon) (insert state)" has produced unsatisfactory results.

How would you recommend that I can reliably look a specific weapon's legality status in a particular state especially when there is a lot of cryptic and dis-information (aka: idiots with a keyboard) out there?



Here's an example of the cryptic information that I'm frustrated with. I'm reasonably certain that in Massachusetts, expendable batons are banned; however, this is the law that is often cited and I can't even find reference to batons in here.

GENERAL LAWS OF MASSACHUSETTS PART IV. CRIMES, PUNISHMENTS AND PROCEEDINGS IN CRIMINAL CASES.

TITLE I. CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS. CHAPTER 269. CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC PEACE.

Chapter 269: Section 10. Carrying dangerous weapons...

(b) Whoever, except as provided by law, carries on his person, or carries on his person or under his control in a vehicle, any stiletto, dagger or a device or case which enables a knife with a locking blade to be drawn at a locked position, any ballistic knife, or any knife with a detachable blade capable of being propelled by any mechanism, dirk knife, any knife having a double-edged blade, or a switch knife, or any knife having an automatic spring release device by which the blade is released from the handle, having a blade of over one and one-half inches, or a slung shot, blowgun, blackjack, metallic knuckles or knuckles of any substance which could be put to the same use with the same or similar effect as metallic knuckles, nunchaku, zoobow, also known as klackers or kung fu sticks, or any similar weapon consisting of two sticks of wood, plastic or metal connected at one end by a length of rope, chain, wire or leather, a shuriken or any similar pointed starlike object intended to injure a person when thrown, or any armband, made with leather which has metallic spikes, points or studs or any similar device made from any other substance or a cestus or similar material weighted with metal or other substance and worn on the hand, or a manrikigusari or similar length of chain having weighted ends; or whoever, when arrested upon a warrant for an alleged crime, or when arrested while committing a breach or disturbance of the public peace, is armed with or has on his person, or has on his person or under his control in a vehicle, a billy or other dangerous weapon other than those herein mentioned and those mentioned in paragraph (a), shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two and one-half years nor more than five years in the state prison, or for not less than six months nor more than two and one-half years in a jail or house of correction, except that, if the court finds that the defendant has not been previously convicted of a felony, he may be punished by a fine of not more than fifty dollars or by imprisonment for not more than two and one-half years in a jail or house of correction.

[Samuel]

Most likely will fall under (be covered by) "billy"...

[G35 Mass]

Correct. Expandable batons in Mass are "dangerous weapons" only if you're arrested for having a warrant or for a breach of the peace crime.

That said, there is no legitimate purpose for having one. If I see one I'm ripping everyone out of the car and frisking them for my safety, and making the owner of it pretty miserable.

[A-C]

That said, there is no legitimate purpose for having one. If I see one I'm ripping everyone out of the car and frisking them for my safety, and making the owner of it pretty miserable.

If there is no legitimate purpose for having a baton, then why do you get to have them?

Your comment seems vindictive and makes me uncomfortable. If people have a right to be armed, then can you describe how your behavior is consistent with anything resembling due process?

Terms defined:

"Due process" here is with respect to the 2nd amendment, 4th amendment, and the principle of punishment determined by a court with a jury according to the law instead of by individuals with whims.

"2nd amendment" refers to right to bear arms.

"4th amendment" refers to protection against unreasonable searches and seizures unless probable cause of a crime is present.

[Samuel]

If there is no legitimate purpose for having a baton, then why do you get to have them?

Your comment seems vindictive and makes me uncomfortable. If people have a right to be armed, then can you describe how your behavior is consistent with anything resembling due process?

Terms defined:

"Due process" here is with respect to the 2nd amendment, 4th amendment, and the principle of punishment determined by a court with a jury according to the law instead of by individuals with whims.

"2nd amendment" refers to right to bear arms.

"4th amendment" refers to protection against unreasonable searches and seizures unless probable cause of a crime is present.

You sure you wanna go down this road? If you continue, I see a bunch of red on the horizon... Btw, if you're gonna play paralegal ("terms defined"), you should study up some more cause you don't know half as much as you think you do...

[A-C]

You sure you wanna go down this road? If you continue, I see a bunch of red on the horizon... Btw, if you're gonna play paralegal ("terms defined"), you should study up some more cause you don't know half as much as you think you do...

I don't understand why you seem to be upset.

I'm asking information gathering questions about fundamental consistencies and about legal application to an ideology where the goal is for the author to describe his position in more detail.

I prefer to define my terms so that people can discuss the merits of an argument without ambiguous semantics. If someone disagrees with the definitions then they are free re-define them so we know each other's assumptions.

Is a bunch of red some kind of punishment? Is it wrong to ask provoking questions?

Could you describe why you don't believe I know as much as I think I do?

[A-C]

I suppose I can see how defining 2nd and 4th amendment would seem petty.

But people have different interpretations about the 2nd amendment and the 4th amendment refers to more than one thing, so I thought the specific references were significant.

[TEXASCOP]

If there is no legitimate purpose for having a baton, then why do you get to have them?

Because police officers are commonly out numbered and respond to dangerous situations that you will likely never encounter in a life time. That being said I have never used mine to strike someone because I have devoted a lot of my spare time to hands on combat training specifically Brazilian Jiu Jujitsu. That has alleviated most of my need to used a baton. When was the last time you had to fight for your life, or had that fear that you might not be going home. When we get that fear the supreme court has granted us to check for weapons that might be accessible to someone. You can google it all day long I'm not going to cite all the cases for you. That would make it too easy for you and you might not learn anything. Also be careful about bringing a baton to a gun fight

Police officers have access to a lot of things you don't have access to. Why are boobs good?

[A-C]

Thanks for the response. You said some things that interested me and I've parceled them out with the hope of getting some follow-up.

Because police officers are commonly out numbered and respond to dangerous situations that you will likely never encounter in a life time.

I'm not sure that I can agree with the first statement. Are police officers commonly outnumbered? I was under the impression that they'll typically call for backup until they feel safe. (Mobs excepted) Meanwhile, an individual is almost always alone, often vs. multiple attackers, and with no back-up options.

Additionally, while it may be true that someone won't be in a dangerous situation on an individual level, I don't think that holds on an aggregate level. If we assume that the police exist to capture criminals and we assume that criminals commit crimes against civilian victims then it would hold that the number of captured criminals is less than the number of criminals which is less than the number of victims. Given that logic, I would think that civilians would be in need of defense vs criminals at a rate greater than that of the police.

Regardless, I'm uncomfortable with arguments that restrict the means of self defense among the citizens founded upon the logic that individuals are relatively less likely to require them. That wouldn't console me as a victim.

What do you think about that?

When was the last time you had to fight for your life, or had that fear that you might not be going home?

It happened twice. Another reason I'm uncomfortable with the "unlikely" argument.

Also be careful about bringing a baton to a gun fight

Thanks, but I'm covered. One of the reasons I would be interested in a baton is that it's really difficult to injure an innocent bystander with one as opposed to a gun where it could be quite easy when the area isn't clear. Yet, the batons seem to get a lot of regulatory attention even though they're more safe and have less than lethal options to them. I can't figure that out, why do you think this is?

[A-C]

I also think I'm familiar enough with the Terry stop court cases.

Although, I think it's a large violation of the citizen's rights (assuming a constitutional perspective) to have the search criteria diminished from probable cause down to reasonable articulable suspicion. It also doesn't cease to confuse me how a police officer seeing a lawful item can constitute probable cause to conduct a search.

[Joeyd6]

Thanks for the response. You said some things that interested me and I've parceled them out with the hope of getting some follow-up. I'm not sure that I can agree with the first statement. Are police officers commonly outnumbered? I was under the impression that they'll typically call for backup until they feel safe. (Mobs excepted)

Cops are not outnumbered? really. You don't see that? It is going to be hard to be taken seriously when you can't see that two cops arriving at a scene are outnumbered. The NYPD has approximately 36,000 police officers, with only 1/3 working at any time....meaning 11,000 working. NYC has a population at night (with no commuters) of about 8.5 million. 11,000 vs 8 million. Really....you don't see the fact they are out numbered?

Meanwhile, an individual is almost always alone, often vs. multiple attackers, and with no back-up options.

Citizens are not being paid to protect the majority of others. Citizens are not expected nor required to run into a dangerous situation to save a life.

Additionally, while it may be true that someone won't be in a dangerous situation on an individual level, I don't think that holds on an aggregate level.
A old professor would always say "I don't care what you THINK, I only care what you can prove." The DOJ runs calculations on such and they found in 2010, your chance of being a victim of violent crime is 403 in 100,000. That is 0.403% of a chance you will be a victim. Less than one percent. It has bene a long time since I took statistics, but I do recall anything less than 1% as being insignificant.

If we assume that the police exist to capture criminals and we assume that criminals commit crimes against civilian victims then it would hold that the number of captured criminals is less than the number of criminals which is less than the number of victims. Given that logic, I would think that civilians would be in need of defense vs criminals at a rate greater than that of the police.

A lot of assumptions made in a theory in a room with nobody else there. Theory is good, but only when practical. Your "assumptions" do not take into count the the other factors. Nobody disagress people need to be able to defend themselves. But make sure your thoery and assumptions include all the factors or your overall conclusion holds little weight.

Regardless, I'm uncomfortable with arguments that restrict the means of self defense among the citizens founded upon the logic that individuals are relatively less likely to require them. That wouldn't console me as a victim.

So should a person who has been convicted of violent crimes, served their time and out of jail be able to carry the same weapons? Should folks with psychiatric issues be allowed the same weapons?

Thanks, but I'm covered. One of the reasons I would be interested in a baton is that it's really difficult to injure an innocent bystander with one as opposed to a gun where it could be quite easy when the area isn't clear. Yet, the batons seem to get a lot of regulatory attention even though they're more safe and have less than lethal options to them. I can't figure that out, why do you think this is?

Batons are just as dangerous as a gun and can kill just as fast. If the area is crowed, by your own assumptions, shouldn't other be willing to help and protect you? It is very rare a violent random crime occurs in a area filled with people.

Your assumptions failt to recognize many people are victims of violent crime because they allow it to happen. They have their head up their rear, allow inappropiate behavior to happen, fail to recognize warning signs, and are suprised when it happens.

[mcsap]

I get to run red and blue lights with a siren. I can legally speed , run red lights etc. So you should have that same ability just because it would help protect you ?

[G35 Mass]

OP,

You are the poster-child for the saying "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing".

You indicate you "THINK" you're "familiar enough with Terry stop cases". Excellent, because a Terry stop is not at all discussed in my post, and rather irreverent. Whatever it is you THINK you know about Terry stops is immaterial to you possessing a billy in Massachusetts, and what my response would be if I found you to have one in a car as described above.

You voice concerns that searches which should require probable cause and a warrant to complete are now only requiring reasonable suspicion.

First, do you know what the definitions of SEARCH, PROBABLE CAUSE, and REASONABLE SUSPICION are? The working, practical explanation that you understand and can articulate to someone?

Most importantly, do you understand what a FRISK is? Because a frisk is highly different than a search. The scope of each is very different, the purpose is not remotely close to a search, and the standard of proof is drastically different.

SEARCH: The looking into an area to find evidence of a crime.
FRISK: Patting down to find weapons which could harm an officer.

WEAPON, not unlawful weapon. I am not only concerned for my safety because of unlawful weapons. I am concerned about knives, baseball bats, pipes, and billys. They all pose a risk to my safety, and depending on where I see/find them a frisk is justified all day long.



Let me guess: CJ student at your local Community College?

[TEXASCOP]

I'm done, this guy is one of those douches that is just trying to piss us off.

[Samuel]

Ditto. I would explain but I think he's already got all the answers...