iftttwall

From CBS Local San Francisco, transit police just doing their
(unnecessary, in this case) job with unnecessary force:

Video has been obtained by KPIX 5 showing a BART police officer
who repeatedly used a stun gun to subdue a passenger in front of
other riders.

A woman who witnessed the incident, who did not want to go on
camera, told KPIX 5 the man was harmless and that the officer used
the stun gun for no reason….

While witnesses were heard on the video saying the man had done
nothing wrong and not bothering anyone, the officer used the stun
gun on the passenger.

As riders look on, the video shows the man being dragged to the
aisle. “Don’t move or I’ll tase you again,” the officer was heard
saying.

But that was not the end. Moments later, the officer said to the
man, “Get on your stomach or I’ll tase you again.”

Minutes pass and more officers arrive. As the man was being held
down and handcuffed, the video shows the same officer using the
stun gun on the passenger for five seconds.

Link to video.

Tasers can be potentially fatal weapons, as officers should well
know. And BART’s own policy says “that a stun gun can only be used
if the suspect poses an immediate threat of bodily harm to the
officer or another person.”

Reason on
tasers.

From CBS Local San Francisco, transit police just doing their
(unnecessary, in this case) job with unnecessary force:

Video has been obtained by KPIX 5 showing a BART police officer
who repeatedly used a stun gun to subdue a passenger in front of
other riders.

A woman who witnessed the incident, who did not want to go on
camera, told KPIX 5 the man was harmless and that the officer used
the stun gun for no reason….

While witnesses were heard on the video saying the man had done
nothing wrong and not bothering anyone, the officer used the stun
gun on the passenger.

As riders look on, the video shows the man being dragged to the
aisle. “Don’t move or I’ll tase you again,” the officer was heard
saying.

But that was not the end. Moments later, the officer said to the
man, “Get on your stomach or I’ll tase you again.”

Minutes pass and more officers arrive. As the man was being held
down and handcuffed, the video shows the same officer using the
stun gun on the passenger for five seconds.

Link to video.

Tasers can be potentially fatal weapons, as officers should well
know. And BART’s own policy says “that a stun gun can only be used
if the suspect poses an immediate threat of bodily harm to the
officer or another person.”

Reason on
tasers.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down California’s
restrictive concealed carry weapon (CCW) permit rules today, saying
they are in direct conflict with the Second Amendment,
as noted at Reason 24/7 earlier today.

In its ruling, the court wrote that “to forbid nearly all forms
of public arms bearing would be
to destroy the right to bear arms
entirely.” California issues concealed carry permits on a “may
issue” basis, meaning that in many counties, citizens must apply to
the county’s sheriff department and show “good cause” to have a
CCW. A majority of states have a “shall issue” rule, which forces
local governments to justify the denial of a permit by citing a
criminal record, mental health issue, or some other potential
public safety risk.

Approximately 0.1% of California citizens have CCWs, which is
almost 20
times lower than in the average shall-issue state, a statistic
that supports the courts opinion that the “good cause” rule is
destroying, or at least severely hindering, the right to bear
arms.

Reason TV covered this issue in 2011, when Gov. Jerry Brown
upset California gun rights activists by signing a bill banning the
practice of “open carry,” in which one wears an unloaded, holstered
gun on the outside of the clothing. Open carry gained popularity in
some parts of California, including San Diego county where the suit
was filed, precisely because of the bans on concealed carry.

In the above video, California Assembly member Anthony
Portantino, the author of the open carry ban, explained his
rationale for prohibiting open carry to Reason TV:

“Just because one person is comfortable with their weapon
doesn’t mean that gives that person the right to infringe on the
rights of other people who aren’t comfortable.”

For now, Portantino need not worry about Californians being made
uncomfortable by the open display of firearms in public places, as
the open carry “loophole” he worked so hard to close is gone. But
in its absence, a giant concealed carry portal just blew
open. 

The full ruling is available
here.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down California’s
restrictive concealed carry weapon (CCW) permit rules today, saying
they are in direct conflict with the Second Amendment,
as noted at Reason 24/7 earlier today.

In its ruling, the court wrote that “to forbid nearly all forms
of public arms bearing would be
to destroy the right to bear arms
entirely.” California issues concealed carry permits on a “may
issue” basis, meaning that in many counties, citizens must apply to
the county’s sheriff department and show “good cause” to have a
CCW. A majority of states have a “shall issue” rule, which forces
local governments to justify the denial of a permit by citing a
criminal record, mental health issue, or some other potential
public safety risk.

Approximately 0.1% of California citizens have CCWs, which is
almost 20
times lower than in the average shall-issue state, a statistic
that supports the courts opinion that the “good cause” rule is
destroying, or at least severely hindering, the right to bear
arms.

Reason TV covered this issue in 2011, when Gov. Jerry Brown
upset California gun rights activists by signing a bill banning the
practice of “open carry,” in which one wears an unloaded, holstered
gun on the outside of the clothing. Open carry gained popularity in
some parts of California, including San Diego county where the suit
was filed, precisely because of the bans on concealed carry.

In the above video, California Assembly member Anthony
Portantino, the author of the open carry ban, explained his
rationale for prohibiting open carry to Reason TV:

“Just because one person is comfortable with their weapon
doesn’t mean that gives that person the right to infringe on the
rights of other people who aren’t comfortable.”

For now, Portantino need not worry about Californians being made
uncomfortable by the open display of firearms in public places, as
the open carry “loophole” he worked so hard to close is gone. But
in its absence, a giant concealed carry portal just blew
open. 

The full ruling is available
here.