Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Do You Have a Right To Use Electrical Weapons?

Posted by Soulskill on from the from-my-crispy,-blackened-hands dept.

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."

4 of 698 comments (clear)

  1. Yes by EmagGeek · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

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

    1. Re:Yes by nyet · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Yes by khasim · · Score: 5, Informative

      You're on the wrong point.

      But even there-- how much regulation is "well regulated" without shading into the "abridging" region?

      "Well regulated" means "trained" or "skilled" in that context at that time. The SCOTUS has already ruled on that.

      And "militia" means most male citizens (between certain ages).

      But neither of those are an issue because the last part says:

      ... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

      And the SCOTUS has also ruled on who "the people" are in that context.

  2. Can't see any logical difference by sjbe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.