Do You Have a Right To Use Electrical Weapons?

An anonymous reader writes: David Cravets points out a growing debate in U.S. constitutional law: does the second amendment grant the same rights regarding electrical weapons as it does for traditional firearms? A Massachusetts ban on private ownership of stun-guns is being considered by the Supreme Court, and it's unclear whether such ownership has constitutional protection. The state's top court didn't think so: "... although modern handguns were not in common use at the time of enactment of the Second Amendment, their basic function has not changed: many are readily adaptable to military use in the same way that their predecessors were used prior to the enactment. A stun gun, by contrast, is a thoroughly modern invention (PDF). Even were we to view stun guns through a contemporary lens for purposes of our analysis, there is nothing in the record to suggest that they are readily adaptable to use in the military." The petitioner is asking the court (PDF) to clarify that the Second Amendment covers non-lethal weapons used for self-defense. Constitutional law expert Eugene Volokh agrees: "Some people have religious or ethical compunctions about killing. ... Some adherents to these beliefs may therefore conclude that fairly effective non-deadly defensive tools are preferable to deadly tools."

Comments

Yes

[EmagGeek]

The Constitution does not say "firearms." It says "arms."

"Arms" include firearms, electrical weapons, slingshots, bows and arrows, and any other sort of weapon.

Re:Yes

[digsbo]

Yes. Further, the point of the 2nd amendment was to equip the population to throw off tyranny. Any and all arms effective for that purpose seem covered by intent. Even ordnance, which was provided by private owners to fight the British. The intent being, specifically, to be able to fight a government.

Re:Yes

[FranTaylor]

If the Police can have it....then so should we the citizenry....

you mean the ability to murder without consequence?

Re:Yes

[nyet]

Considering the responses we're seeing from most people here ("omg well regulated"), discussing the nuances and legalities of US v Miller with them is like discussing quantum electrodynamics with somebody who has barely mastered arithmetic.

Re:Yes

[roc97007]

if applied in practice, produce a police force entirely compatible with anarchism.

But only guaranteed if someone were to enforce your rule #1... which of course would be incompatible with anarchism.

Hence the flaw in many arguments for various non-centralized forms of government. If the rules aren't enforced, they're likely to forcibly change. If they're enforced by some central authority, the government is no longer what you said it was.

My favorite example was the young woman interviewed during Occupy Wall Street, who said we should all abandon money and civilization and go back to being an agrarian society. When it was pointed out to her that such a decision would cause a massive die-off of American citizens, her response was "well, people die."

Ok, let's look at that for a minute, sweetness. You and your colorful friends develop an agrarian society somewhere, and let's say you're actually successful, in that you can adequately and sustainably feed all of your members with a little left over.

Then, one day a bunch of hungry brutes with guns arrive, and suddenly you find that the survivors in your little community are working for the brute squad, and life isn't nearly as nice. What are you gonna do about it? "Mike check!"

Can't see any logical difference

[sjbe]

Massachusetts ban on private ownership of stun-guns being considered by the Supreme Court, and it's unclear whether such ownership has constitutional protection.

Although logic rarely gets involved in discussions around the 2nd Amendment, I can't think of any logical reason why stun-guns should be treated any different than firearms. The 2nd amendment says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed but it doesn't specify only weapons that use gunpowder. The fact that stun-guns using electricity are of recent development is not a relevant consideration to my mind.

The petitioner is asking the court (PDF) to clarify that the Second Amendment covers non-lethal weapons used for self-defense.

There is really no such thing as a "non-lethal weapon". ANY weapon can be used to kill even if they are primarily designed to incapacitate. That said, prohibiting weapons which are generally less lethal while allowing ones that are designed primarily to kill is the height of stupid.

Re:A Constitutional Rat's Nest

[Orgasmatron]

In 1789 "press" meant a movable type device that printed a single sheet, at most a few times a minute. I wonder, how far from that can you go and still claim the 1st amendment applies?

A typewriter?
An electronic fax machine?
A computer? A cell phone? A global inter-network?

So there are limits to protected "presses", ill defined as they are. But If we finally had to update the 1st amendment due to rising tech, things could get interesting.

If the 1st Amendment is a civil right, what purpose do presses serve the citizen? If self expression, and since there are many more ways to express one's thoughts and feelings today than in 1789, should we amend the 1st to emphasize the goal of self expression rather than allow it to advocate presses as a means to an end that's ill served by the tech advance of ever broader expression systems - telephone and internet?

Given the huge difference between an 18th century press and modern communications, and the indifference of regulators to respond to that difference, it seems likely that the escalation of presses protected by the 1st amendment is going to cross a line, and soon.