Slashdot Mirror
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."
The Constitution does not say "firearms." It says "arms."
"Arms" include firearms, electrical weapons, slingshots, bows and arrows, and any other sort of weapon.
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.
Yes, the case was used for banning sawed off shotguns. The argument being the military didn't use them, therefore they were not protected.
Couple points, that decision was flawed. It is well documented that it was one of the worse Supreme Court cases in history. And likely staged...Neither the defendants nor their legal counsel appeared at the Supreme Court. A lack of financial support and procedural irregularities prevented counsel from traveling.[4] Miller was found shot to death in April, before the decision was rendered.[5]
So imagine using as precedent a case that was never even defended against. So what were the precedents established?
1.The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia.
2.The "double barrel 12-gauge Stevens shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches in length, bearing identification number 76230" was never used in any militia organization.
***
If you want to USE that argument. Then guess what? 1. This would overturn the 1986 prohibition against post '86 machine guns and fully automatic rifles. As these ARE used by military. 2. Our military now regularly uses short barreled shotguns in door-to-door operations. As such, short barreled rifles would now have to be legal sans the tax stamp.
And even back in the day it was an incorrect decisions as: During WWI, between 30,000 and 40,000 short-barreled pump-action shotguns were purchased by the US Ordnance Department and saw service in the trenches and for guarding German prisoners.[8]
***
AND A BIG FYI - Shot barreled shotguns are NOT illegal per Federal law. They merely require a tax stamp and registration.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
LASTLY>>>>>>>
The 2nd Amendment does not state the right to bear guns, or even firearms. But arms....a term for personal weapons...this means guns, knives, swords, electromagnetic pulse pistols, tasers, etc....are ALL protected by the words of the 2nd Amendment.
Which if you do research, you will learn did not mean "regulations" as we use the term today. It meant "well trained/equipped"...
In 1789 "arms" meant a musket or a flint lock pistol that fired a miniball, at most twice a minute. I wonder, how far from that can you go and still claim the 2nd amendment applies?
An semi-auto assault rifle? Generally legal.
A fully-auto assault rifle? Generally not legal.
A grenade launcher? A guided missile? A booby trap bomb? Not legal in the US, today.
So there are limits to protected "arms", ill defined as they are. But If we finally had to update the 2nd amendment due to rising tech, things could get interesting.
If the 2nd Amendment is a civil right, what purpose do arms serve the citizen? If self defense, and since there are many more ways to defend one's home and family today than in 1789, should we amend the 2nd to emphasize the goal of self defense rather than allow it to advocate arms as a means to an end that's ill served by the tech advance of ever deadlier offensive weapons - pistols and rifles?
Given the huge difference between an 18th century musket and modern light arms, and the indifference of regulators to respond to that difference, it seems likely that the escalation of guns protected by the 2nd amendment is going to cross a line, and soon.