Does the 2nd Amendment apply to stun guns?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Apr 26, 2015
Messages
30,665
Ars Technica is reporting (at http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...-but-what-about-electrical-arms-or-stun-guns/, I highly recommend reading the article) that the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that the 2nd Amendment does not apply to stun guns because they are "a thoroughly modern invention" that is neither readily adaptable for military use, nor used for target practice or hunting. The case has been appealed to the SCOTUS, no word yet on whether they have accepted it.

What do you guys think? Does a weapon have to be "readily adaptable to use in the military" for the 2nd Amendment to apply?
 
Stun guns are illegal in some states, if they were protected by the second amendment they would be legal in all states.

Some states have outright bans, others have restrictions like CCW needed, or FOID needed or some counties of a state outlaw them or they are banned in just one city of one state, or they cannot be used outside. One state bans online sales.

http://www.denverwholesale.com/stungunlaws.html



stungunmap.gif
.
 
Last edited:
adding the word gun after something does not necessarily make it a "gun" as defined by the ATF. local restrictions vary.
 
Some of the opposition seems to think the 2nd has nothing to do with 'readily adaptable to use in the military' and everything to do with deer hunting. :rolleyes:
 
Here in Michigan the type of "Stun Gun" that you have to put the points against the person being stunned manually is prohibited. However the "Taser" type that fires the barbed probes is allowed to be carried by a Concealed Pistol License holder.
 
Are stun guns 'arms?'
-Do they have a military or police application in delivering force to their opposition?
-Do they have a self-defense application in delivering force to an attacker?

There ya go :)

"the 2nd Amendment does not apply to stun guns because they are "a thoroughly modern invention""
For the love of Pete, when is SCOTUS going to start defending Heller? This kind of bass-ackwards reasoning has got to stop. It's been very clearly written that chronology has exactly nothing to do with a constitutional right's applicability, and yet this moronic "flintlock muskets" nonsense keeps getting trotted out, by higher and higher courts of law as SCOTUS sits on its hands. To be honest, I would much prefer they contradict Heller at this point if that's what the makeup of the court has come to, clarify the issue, and get the ball rolling, than endure this gradual draining of the ruling's (and by proxy, the High Court's) authority.

A second question would be why the exact points I raised at the start of my post were ignored with a hand-wave by the court; I would like to think the defense brought them up in arguments, but perhaps they were prevented from doing so somehow. Perhaps the court truly ignored the entire argument of the defense and inserted their own preconceived argument instead.

I'm sorry, but if a court in Texas held that blacks cannot own property because they aren't human beings or American citizens in an imminent domain case, the ruling and careers of everyone involved in the ruling would be destroyed by the higher courts immediately upon appeal, if not jailed for abuse of their official capacity. Dragging the old technology argument into a RKBA ruling is literally the same kind of antiquated, bigoted thinking which refuses to recognize a very clear modern precedent, out of pure judicial prejudice.

With nearly 60% of Americans believing guns are useful for self defense, perhaps --like the question of blacks' humanity-- a new amendment is in order, explicitly protecting the human right to self defense from legal restriction.

TCB
 
Stun guns are illegal in some states, if they were protected by the second amendment they would be legal in all states.
Not saying this because of who it came from; just a gentle reminder: this is a dangerous thought-process.

"If it was bad/harmful/wrong, it would be illegal."
or...
"Its legal so it must be good/okay/right."

Let's be thinking for ourselves, and not get caught up in this destructive trap. Carry on.
 
Last edited:
radio, tv, the internet are all thoroughly modern inventions. Guess they arent covered under free speech..
 
adding the word gun after something does not necessarily make it a "gun" as defined by the ATF. local restrictions vary.
Dont tell that to a liberal. Its a wonder that liberals havent began attempts to ban high capacity water guns... you know... those that hold over 10 ounces of water... god forbid you get caught with one of those fully automatic super soakers...
 
The 2A says right to keep and bear arms, not right to keep and bear guns limited to the type in regulation issue in 1792.

Arms are things that can be used as weapons of defense or offense. Especially protected is defensive use.* Stun guns are weapons especially suited for defense, although like other weapons they can be used for offense.

*(Offensive use is covered by criminal law.)
 
barbwt wrote:
"Are stun guns 'arms?'
-Do they have a military or police application in delivering force to their opposition?
-Do they have a self-defense application in delivering force to an attacker?

There ya go

"the 2nd Amendment does not apply to stun guns because they are "a thoroughly modern invention""
For the love of Pete, when is SCOTUS going to start defending Heller? This kind of bass-ackwards reasoning has got to stop. It's been very clearly written that chronology has exactly nothing to do with a constitutional right's applicability, and yet this moronic "flintlock muskets" nonsense keeps getting trotted out, by higher and higher courts of law as SCOTUS sits on its hands. To be honest, I would much prefer they contradict Heller at this point if that's what the makeup of the court has come to, clarify the issue, and get the ball rolling, than endure this gradual draining of the ruling's (and by proxy, the High Court's) authority."


Well, obviously I agree that stun guns are weapons and that the reasoning is illogical. Just want to clarify though that the ruling was NOT from SCOTUS, rather from the MASSACHUSETTS Supreme Court. It is being appealed to SCOTUS, which has not yet announced whether they will hear it.
 
Not saying this because of who it came from; just a gentle reminder: this is a dangerous thought-process.

"If it was bad/harmful/wrong, it would be illegal."
or...
"Its legal so it must be good/okay/right."

Let's be thinking for ourselves, and not get caught up in this destructive trap. Carry on.
Agree.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top