Poll: Does the 2nd Amendment Cover Stun Guns?

Gun Watch ^ | 30 November, 2014 | Dean Weingarten

[marktwain]

There is an interesting court case proceeding in Massachusetts.  A homeless woman was given a stun gun for defensive purposes.  She used it to defend herself against domestic abuse.  She was arrested for shoplifting, and the police found the stun gun, which is banned in Massachusetts, one of only five states to do so.   In her defense, her public defender is claiming her second amendment rights cover the stun gun.

In Michigan,the state supreme court ruled that stun guns are protected by the second amendment.   One of the arguments of the prosecutor in Massachusetts seems to be that there is no right to self defense outside of the home.  From uppermichiganssource.com:

In a legal brief, prosecutors argue that the Second Amendment does not establish a constitutional right to own a stun gun and that two pivotal U.S. Supreme Court decisions that upheld the right to own a firearm for self-defense inside homes did not automatically grant that right outside the home.

An online poll asks a simple question:

Do you think stun guns should be covered under the second amendment?

Yes is at  80%; No is at  20%.

Here is a link to the poll.   It is at the bottom of the article.

An important question before the court is if being without a home deprives a person of their constitutional right to keep and bear arms.   Numerous courts have already ruled that being homeless may not deprive a person of the right to vote.

©2014 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch

[GeronL]

right, the question is ridiculous

[GingisK]

If lethal weapons are permitted under the 2A, then why the hell should less-than-lethal be prohibited?

I never said they should be prohibited. I just don't think they are protected by the 2nd. One can take prisoners with any sort of weapon, deadly or otherwise. Most are taken at gunpoint. The term "arms" was very specific to the Founders.

[MeatshieldActual]

Exactly! Arms means everything under the Sun, everything that was, is, and shall be a weapon! The only exceptions I would make is CBRN weapons.

[Starstruck]

I do not understand your reference. "I don't think a stun gun is a weapon of war" is a statement. I know for a FACT that I would not bear a stun gun into battle. I don't know anyone who would consider a stun gun to be a worth arm.

You referenced a rule that banned sawed off shotguns as a basis and are refusing to acknowledge the same rule banned machine guns.

[GingisK]

...and are refusing to acknowledge the same rule banned machine guns...

Show where I refused to acknowledge that. I fully understand that the machine gun portion of that ruling to be fallacious. I agree with the shotgun portion of the ruling. That is just me and my choice of weapons, I suppose.

If I had my way, we would still be packing the 7.62 X 51 weapons and not that damn BB gun.

[PapaBear3625]

The Second Amendment does not cover "The right to bear guns". It talks about the right to bear ARMS, which are defined as "Weapons and ammunition; armaments".

Guns, swords, fighting knives, clubs, tomahawks, mace, pepper spray -- ANYTHING whose use is to protect oneself from aggression is covered under the Second Amendment's "right to keep and bear arms".

[MeatshieldActual]

Short barreled shotguns were used extensively during the First World War and are used extensively today as breeching weapons. Therefore they should be protected by the 2nd Amendment.

[PapaBear3625]

"Congress shall have no power to disarm the milita. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American...The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." - Tench Coxe, writing as "the Pennsylvanian" in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, 1788

[Starstruck]

I agree with the shotgun portion of the ruling. That is just me and my choice of weapons, I suppose.

Why would you agree with the shotgun portion of the ruling?

[SWAMPSNIPER]

BAN MASSACHUSETTS!!

[marktwain]

There are many good people in Massachusetts. They are simply infested with “Progressive” politicians.

We need to expose them and remove their power.

The best way is to build the new media.

I know you know all that...

(but I like the sentiment) :-)

[GingisK]

Why would you agree with the shotgun portion of the ruling?

I don't disagree with "shotgun" in general. The sawed-off shotgun is a weapon of the criminal. A proper tactical shotgun in an entirely different matter.

[GingisK]

By the way. The proper response on behalf of that homeless woman is to supply her with a proper weapon, the training to use it, and enough ammunition to get her through her crisis.

Nobody else on this thread attempted to address the actual problem posed in the article and the correct Second Amendment solution.

[Starstruck]

The sawed-off shotgun is a weapon of the criminal.

Never tried to operate a full size shotgun within the confines of a tank?

[hoosierham]

The sawed off shotgun is just the thing to repel attackers trying to breach your safe room.

It is never the tool itself which is evil,but its use by evil people.

[GingisK]

Never tried to operate a full size shotgun within the confines of a tank?

Ever try a purpose-made short-barreled tactical shotgun withing the confines of a tank? You must not be reading my posts. A sawed-off shotgun is a weapon made by thugs out of hunting shotguns. A tactical short-barreled shotgun is a different matter. Read baby, read.

Do something before they get into your tank.

[Starstruck]

A tactical short-barreled shotgun is a different matter. Read baby, read.

A tactical sawed off shotgun is a weapon of war, but a civilian one is against the rule of war? Your logic doesn't make sense. If I have a sawed off shotgun to protect my family in the confines of my house that is illegal? The ATF welcomes your support.

[gogeo]

What would be the compelling state interest that would override the right to self defense for a homeless woman?

It's for her safety, of course...

[GingisK]

...sawed off...

I'm not sure if you are unfamiliar with proper terminology or are not reading carefully. A "sawed-off" shotgun is one that has been modified to a short barrel by physically sawing off a portion of a longer barrel with a hack saw. It is an inferior expedient that is made illegally. A short barreled tactical shotgun is appropriate because it functions entirely as intended by its manufacturer.

Altered weapons are usually inferior, certainly not military grade. They are generally used by criminals so that they can conceal the weapon for use in the commission of a crime.

If you have a sawed-off shotgun to protect your family, you are in possession of an illegally altered firearm. If you are protecting your family with a tactical short-barreled shotgun that was manufactured in accordance with regulations, you are just fine.

Some people just don't know the meaning of specific terminology, I suppose. Do you say "clip" or "magazine" when referring to a spring-loaded ammunition feed mechanism that is inserted into a weapon?

Use of proper nomenclature and compliance to regulations is the key to these concepts.

[MeatshieldActual]

To the government’s point of view, there is no difference between a sawed-off shotgun and a purpose built short-barrel shotgun. Both perform the exact same function. We cant ban or regulate sawed-offs/SBS just because sawed-off shotguns have been historically associated with gangsters. Politicians once said the same thing about machine guns, so now we cant get one without breaking the bank. If we want to overturn the NFA and GCA, then we must de-stigmatize these weapons.