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

[Kenton]

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

Yeah, I do. Stun grenades too.

[JRandomFreeper]

The Constitution says whatever five out of nine Supreme Court justices say it says.

Nope.

5 of them, and hundreds of millions of Americans.

/johnny

[dynachrome]

Thanks to Marktwain for the post and ping!

Direct link to poll:

http://www.uppermichiganssource.com/news/story.aspx?id=1129098#.VHnVshKYNok

FREEP THIS POLL ***PING!***
FRmail me if you want to be added or removed from the Fearless Poll-Freeping Freepers Ping list. (multiple votes using multiple internetz devices are allowed!)
And be sure to ping me to any polls that need Freepin’, if I miss them.
(looks like a medium volume list) (gordongekko909, founder of the pinglist, stays on the list until his ghost signs up for the list)

[EXCH54FE]

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

Yes 84%

No 16%

Total Votes: 213

[Road Warrior ‘04]

Done.

Yes - 84%
No - 16%
Total Votes: 218

[Ditter]

Ah yes, potato guns! “but officer, he looked hungry, I was just trying to help. “

[smokingfrog]

If it’s not specific, then it should mean anywhere.

[Amendment10]

Note that the word “guns” does not appear in the 2nd Amendment (2A), the Founders smartly using the vague term arms. Stun guns are reasonably protected by 2A imo.

[GingisK]

I believe it covers all weapons that can be carried.

I do not think a stun gun is an "arm", a weapon of war. As such, it is not protected by the 2nd. This same rule applied to a sawed-off shotgun.

[MeatshieldActual]

Its worth noting that the Supreme Court in the US vs. Miller case got their facts wrong. Short Barrel Shotguns DO have a military value, and were used by all sides in the First World War! Similarly, machine guns, artillery, RPGs, grenades, recoil-less rifles, etc, all have military value.

The 2A also doesn't say anything about having only lethal weapons, so it stands to reason that non-lethal options are protected as well.

[marktwain]

This article shows how the Miller case was a set up by a virulently anti-second amendment judge, appointed by FDR:

http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2013/12/the-peculiar-story-of-united-states-v.html

[MeatshieldActual]

Its not JUST man-portable weapons, but indeed, ANY weapon of military/militia value. That is why the founders specifically allowed artillery, warships, grenades, etc.., it wasn’t until 1934 that the Federal Government started infringing on the right to own “weapons of war”.

[marktwain]

“The Constitution says whatever five out of nine Supreme Court justices say it says.”

It is a common misconception taught in law school for decades. There are other means of enforceing the constitution. There is the Executive branch, and the Congress, though they have abdicated their responsibiilty for the most part.

Then there are juries, who can refuse to indict and refuse to convict, regardless of what the Supreme Court tells them.

[MeatshieldActual]

Even though most view US vs. Miller as a loss, I view it as an opportunity. The Supreme Court ruled that weapons of military/militia value “in common use” are a protected right, the only problem is that the Court’s ruling was never enforced...which would have logically ended the NFA.

The new lawsuits against Eric Holder and B Todd Jones mention this fact, which may work in our favor. Look up Hollis vs. Holder.

[marktwain]

I would love to see the Supremes rule that way.

[Starstruck]

I do not think a stun gun is an "arm", a weapon of war. As such, it is not protected by the 2nd. This same rule applied to a sawed-off shotgun.

Are you making this up as you go? The same rule was applied to machine guns. Not a weapon of war?

[Bubba_Leroy]

There are other means of enforceing the constitution. There is the Executive branch, and the Congress, though they have abdicated their responsibiilty for the most part.

Congress has completely abdicated their responsibility under the Constitution to check and balance the Supreme Court.

Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution gives the Supreme Court original jurisdiction over "all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party." In all other federal cases, the Supreme Court only has appellate authority and only "with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make."

Congress can therefore specifically except the Supreme Court from hearing appeals of cases involving, for example, abortion or gay marriage or sodomy or any other area that the Supreme Court refuses to follow common sense and 2,000 years of western civilization precedent. But they won't. So Five out of Nine unelected dictators have become the final word on the Constitution.

[GingisK]

Are you making this up as you go?

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.

[GingisK]

Similarly, machine guns, artillery, RPGs, grenades, recoil-less rifles, etc, all have military value.

Well, duh! None of those are stun guns, are they?

[MeatshieldActual]

Stun guns, and other less-than-lethal options are great for taking prisoners. Although war is mainly about killing, its also about maneuver, leverage, and taking important enemy prisoners. If lethal weapons are permitted under the 2A, then why the hell should less-than-lethal be prohibited?