Second Amendment Right to Stun Gun

I am very pleased to see a judge understanding that the Second Amendment is about more than just firearms:

“Because the court finds that a stun gun is an arm under the Second Amendment, it likewise follows that states may regulate the ownership and possession in the same manner as any other arm,” the judge wrote. “However, this court holds that a total ban of stun guns … is unconstitutional.”

This seems correct to me. Hopefully other courts will come to similar conclusions in regards to non-firearm self-defense items like sprays and knives.

10 thoughts on “Second Amendment Right to Stun Gun”

  1. Funny…their law prohibits a device that emits electric “waves, impulses, or beams.”

    By that definition, cell phones need banned. They deliver electric ‘waves or impulses’ at EVERYONE, whether you point the antenna at the person or not.

    So are they going to make calling 911 illegal? Or radios? Oh, wait, I’ve got it! They’re going to ban BATTERIES!

  2. I never understood why I can carry a .44 magnum without a permit but not a stun gun.

  3. Cell phones emit magnetic waves, not a wave/impulse/beam of an electrical natures.

    Now, rubbing your feet on the carpet to give your sister a static shock, that would be emitting an electrical wave/impulse/beam.

    Or the funny metal spheres that science teachers use to make kids’ hair stand up.

    Arc welders.

  4. Actually, cellphones (and flashlights too for that matter) emit electric waves and magnetic waves simultaneously. It’s the dual facts that a time changing magnetic field generates and electric field and a time changing electric field generates a magnetic field that lead to propagating electromagnetic waves. The only difference between light, IR, UV and radio is how many times per second the directions of these fields reverse.

  5. The next logical step for those of us in the gun rights community is to get our Legislatures to restrict all other weapons (arms) no more tightly than state law treats firearms.

    If your state, like AK, has RKBA-based preemptions for firearms ownership, possession and carry but not for other “arms” you need to start sending missives to the usual suspects to get that fixed next session. Including this court case, if it wins on appeal, and the couple others with similar rulings will provide a semi-“stick” of legal inevitability to the polite request.

    The beauty is that it can be framed as merely simplifying the law and making it more consistent, not as a big additional “rights” issue.

    Any opponents will have a hard time explaining why they support local preemption and lawful carry for “scary handguns” (which most will pragmatically give lip service to in pro-gun states) but not “mere” knives and less(er)-lethal weapons.

    Anyway, that’s what I’m doing up here.

  6. Wes wrote: I never understood why I can carry a .44 magnum without a permit but not a stun gun.

    Don’t try to understand; your head will just hurt.

    Just say this, over and over: It’s the government, it does not have to make sense . . .

  7. Said waves impulses and beams are only illegal when used to affect the muscular or nervous system. The paper excerpted the law a bit.

  8. I dare say that an arc welder would affect my nervous and muscular system. And I have a flashlight that might do so as well.

  9. No, dusty you are wrong. Cell phones emit waves that are BOTH magnetic and ELECTRIC.

Comments are closed.