Do You Have a Right To Use Electrical Weapons? 698
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."
Yes (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.
Re: (Score:3)
I wonder if concealed carry permits cover broadswords?
Re:Yes (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Is that a broadsword concealed in your pocket, or are you just happy to see me?
Neither... It's my AR-14, and you better hope I'm not unhappy to see you....
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, there is such a thing as an AR-14 -- it's just so incredibly rare most people think it doesn't exist.
See http://www.thefirearmblog.com/... [thefirearmblog.com] for one interesting article on it.
(But I agree, the original poster probably meant AR-15)
Yes, in many states... (Score:3)
In many states the permits simply state the right to bear a concealed weapon. Hence often referenced as a concealed weapons permit.
It's one of my objections with the Pennsylvania permit, while it is one of the best states for personal firearms possession. The permit is worded specifically as a "License To Carry Firearms" (LTCF)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Yes (Score:5, Insightful)
If the Police can have it....then so should we the citizenry....
you mean the ability to murder without consequence?
Re: (Score:3)
1. If the police can have it, then so should we the citizenry.
2. We the citizenry should not have the ability to murder without consequence.
Therefore:
3. The police can't have that ability either.
(by modus tollens)
That first premise is actually remarkably useful and would in fact, if applied in practice, produce a police force entirely compatible with anarchism.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re:Yes (Score:5, Insightful)
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!"
Re: (Score:3)
I think we're drifting from the point a little bit. It's not about playing conqueror. It's about wanting or needing someone else's resources. The overall point is that going back to an agrarian society doesn't mean the people who are successful at growing crops will have food and everyone else is just going to sit at home and die. What Sweetness doesn't realize is that those hungry people are going to take their stuff. And no amount of group standing in a circle and chanting is going to change that.
Wha
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Sure, and most such systems eventually decide that banding together for the mutual protection and common good is better than warring with your neighbors and always being afraid that they will conquer you. A family becomes community, a community becomes a tribe, a tribe becomes a state, and a state becomes larger and larger. This continues to happen until the state cannot grow any more, or until the group is conquered or falls apart from the inside.
Re: (Score:3)
If the Police can have it....then so should we the citizenry....
This is a more significant point than you might think. The court in this case specifically cited the fact that stun guns are not used by the military:
there is nothing in the record to suggest that they are readily adaptable to use in the military
But as you say they are used by our increasingly militant police force. It seems to me a good lawyer should be able to use the judge's own words against him, making the case for stun gun rights by pointing out the growing police usage, which is patently only a step away from military use. Frankly, I can't see these bans being upheld by a supreme court that h
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Yes (Score:4, Informative)
Re: Yes (Score:5, Funny)
Right, because when someone breaks into my house nothing gets them out quicker than lighting the entire thing on fire.
Re:Yes (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Ordinance was usually considered the possession of a town, estate (which was akin to a deeded minor titled land holder), or a vessel (a ship being in many ways treated as a small village).
Hence, I view the 2nd Amendment, that ALL small arms (personal weapons) are protected. But ordinance/artillery is not. We should have access to machine guns, but not necessarily nukes or missiles.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
To split a hair ... I own my house ... "Mister" is a minor title. and there is definitely a deed for my house which effectively makes me a deeded minor titled land holder... so you're OK with me owning "ordinance" ?
My college roommate has a small cannon sitting in his living room. Owning ordnance in the US is legal, you just can't own explosive projectiles.
Re: (Score:3)
I work for a municipality (and actually, on the property tax software). If you don't pay your taxes (for several years - a tax auction doesn't occur for a 1-year delinquent property) it is forcibly sold at auction . . . and you get the proceeds - after the taxes are taken out.
And even then you still have a year to reclaim your property from the buyer as long as you can pay the taxes plus 3% of whatever their bid for the property was.
Don't confuse the concept of ownership with things having requirements. Y
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. Further, the point of the 2nd amendment was to equip the population to throw off tyranny.
so according to you, individuals should be able to purchase and use nuclear weapons without a permit
Re: (Score:3)
Still haven't read US v Miller yet, I see.
Re: (Score:3)
so according to you, individuals should be able to purchase and use nuclear weapons without a permit
Sure, as long as they pass a background check, and don't remove the serial numbers. Of course, the background check could be waived if they are just buying a small tactical nuke at a gun show.
Re: (Score:3)
Iran will be offering great discounts soon.
Re: (Score:2)
It also specifically mentions "a well regulated militia" but most gun rights advocates conveniently forget that part.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you sure you know what "well-regulated" means in that context?
Re:Yes (Score:5, Informative)
You're on the wrong point.
"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:
And the SCOTUS has also ruled on who "the people" are in that context.
Re:Yes (Score:5, Funny)
the supreme court could rule tomorrow that "well regulated" means "with mustard and mayonaisse"
Re: (Score:3)
If Interstate Commerce was redefined, it was done a long time ago, during the New Deal. And then there's Lopez v Gonzalez. But that's not a redefinition of the sort FranTaylor was claiming, just a stretching.
With respect to the ACA, I'm not sure what you're talking about, though. SCOTUS ruled that the ACA could not be justified under the Commerce Clause. They upheld it as a legitimate exercise of Congress' power to tax.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Never read the Militia Act, I see.
Hint: The Militia Act defines the Militia. The definition is basically "every adult male in the USA".
Which makes me a member, and probably the overwhelming majority of /. members as well.
Note that later laws regarding women in the Military could be used to argue that every adult female is also a member of the militia. Which would make my wife, my daught
Re: (Score:2)
We get handguns and few shitty rifles. Good luck throwing off a government armed with drones and tactical nuclear devices. Firearms are absolutely fucking useless to that point.
Untrue. You'll always need ground troops to conquer territory, and to that extent, small arms are sufficient for fending off even the most well armed invasion force.
See also Afghanistan vs USSR.
Re: (Score:2)
Ideologically (and logically) that would make sense, but US v Miller established the "common use test".
Really there are three different questions:
1) Should they be constitutionally protected?
2) Are they constitutionally protected if one interprets the 2A ignoring legal precedent?
3) Are they constitutionally protected given the current legal understanding (post US v Miller) of the 2A?
When somebody gives their opinion on the topic, always try to figure out which of the three they are attempting to answer.
Re: (Score:2)
Thing is, if Miller v US is revisted, the $200 tax stamp on NFA items and the actual NFA registry is unconstitutional
What is issued to the average infantry soldier in today's Army/Marines? Short barrel rifle, select fire. Often suppressed. Occasional short barrel shotguns (door breaching, etc). The M203 (or whatever current version of it is) 40mm grenade launcher (you can own one, but it is a NFA destructive device)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually US vs Miller, is probably one of the most flawed decisions ever made. It was quite possibly staged. Mr. Miller's side didn't even have a defense. And he was found dead before the decision (you can decide if it was by gang rivals or government officials).
It even ignored the fact that yes, the military used 30-40 thousand short barreled shotguns.
And if you want to use the common use clause. Then we need to remove restrictions on the M4 Automatic battle rifle used by our military.
Re:Yes (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.
Well-regulated militia (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And your definition of "well regulated" is what? Are you sure it means what you think it means?
Re: (Score:2)
slavery used to be constitutional, but that's an inconvenient fact to people who argue that the constitution is perfect just as it is
Re: (Score:2)
Well... It's not any crazy who loves guns.
"Well regulated militia".
Militia is 1. An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
2. A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.
Re: (Score:3)
Keep reading the rest of the amendment, and you will find that it actually prevents congress from restricting anyone's ownership of "arms". Arms being the nebulous term it is for very good reason.
Re: (Score:2)
Merriam-Webster:
militia: the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service.
Considering we don't want to discriminate against women, that means the entire able-bodied population.
This leaves "well regulated". The laws regulating firearm ownership pretty much have that covered.
Re: (Score:3)
And "well-regulated" means "well armed, equipped, and trained".
Re:Well-regulated militia (Score:5, Informative)
Which if you do research, you will learn did not mean "regulations" as we use the term today. It meant "well trained/equipped"...
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe not law but we have a number of dead military personal gunned down in their offices to demonstrate our military will indeed disarm their troops.
I'll presume to correct your statement to mean "any sane government".
Re: (Score:3)
I would even go so far as to point out that traditionally, the legal system has treated tasers as they do guns, especially the ones that fire darts (some use gunpowder to launch the darts.)
The right to bear arms must include any weapon, otherwise we are just asking for future technology to negate our constitutional rights.
Just as the right to free speech also applies to TV, Radio and the internet, the right to bear arms includes all reasonable weapons designed to replace guns.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. Portraits of George Washington show him carrying a sword. Thus short-range non-lethal weapons certainly existed at the time of the Bill of Rights.
Besides, there is a M-26 Taser version used by the military, so it is definitely a military weapon.
Re: (Score:2)
... It says "arms."...
It also says "regulated".
Re: (Score:2)
It also says "regulated".
And you just proved you have no reading comprehension or historical knowledge.
The Constitution implicitly assumes the existence of private warships that Congress can issue letters of marque and reprisal to. The founders wouldn't have given two mosquito farts about people owning stun guns.
Re: (Score:2)
"well-regulated" != "regulated"
You do know what "well-regulated" meant in the time of the phrase's contemporary use, right?
Re: (Score:2)
From wikipedia: A weapon, arm, or armament is any device used in order to inflict damage or harm to living beings, structures, or systems.
Therefore, nuclear weapon == Arms
It thus follows that no reasonable person believes in the 2nd amendment.
This is obviou
Re: (Score:2)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
With the court's logic, since high speed printing presses/TV/radio/cable/Internet are all new fangled inventions, free speech shouldn't apply to those.
To be fair, they've already basically said that, since the Internet didn't exist in the 18th century, the fourth amendment doesn't apply to it. So it wouldn't be inconsistent.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Again, you should probably review US v Miller.
Also, ask yourself, where was Mr. Miller when the decision was handed down?
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm.... and just WHO killed Jack Miller?
Re: (Score:2)
^ that's because those fall under ordinance/artillery as opposed to [small] arms.
Re: (Score:2)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
the constitution allowed for slavery and that was the intention of the founders, too
shall we respect all their wishes or are we cherry-picking here?
Re: (Score:2)
The citizens were the "well regulated militia" part...
Re: (Score:2)
"well-regulated" meaning, what? Be specific.
Re: (Score:3)
The intent of second amendment was never to give citizens the power to overthrow the legitimate government.
I don't believe that is entirely clear.
"it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." ... ... seems there are some strong indications that they would want the citizens to be able to do so i
"... it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
Re: (Score:2)
It does vary from state to state. Check out kniferights.org.
Can't see any logical difference (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.
Re: (Score:3)
An important difference is that a "non-lethal" weapon is much more likely to be used than a lethal weapon. For example, police will very frequently use water guns, pepper spray, tear gas, rubber bullets, tasers, and the like in cases where they would never have used lethal force.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Prohibition used to be constitutional.
Was it right when it was constitutional?
Re: (Score:3)
Do you really think that arms will defend you from the attacks of the government and corporations? You're just falling for marketing hype.
Readily adapatable to military use is NOT a requir (Score:5, Interesting)
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/... [wikipedia.org]
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.
Don't care about stun guns... (Score:3)
Thank you Second Circuit (Score:2)
Thank you Second Circuit. I look forward to exercising my right to bear swords, pikes, and various firearms with accompanying bayonets. All these being Napoleonic melee weapons in common use at the time of enactment of the second amendment. When I open ca
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you Second Circuit. I look forward to exercising my right to bear swords, pikes, and various firearms with accompanying bayonets. ....I fully expect you to back me to the hilt
I see what you did there
Firearms? (Score:2)
Stun guns seem a good step in gun control (Score:2)
Every time there's a local initiative to get people to turn in their guns, I wonder why they don't offer to give each person a stun gun in its place. That would be far more enticing to me. It seems like a reasonable compromise on the debate of gun control would be to have strict regulations on lethal arms while non-lethal may be purchased by all.
Maybe someone better informed on statistics can weigh in on this?
Re: (Score:2)
Every time there's a local initiative to get people to turn in their guns, I wonder why they don't offer to give each person a stun gun in its place.
Because drug dealers aren't going to swap an AK47 for a taser? At least, not unless they've just done a driveby and need to get rid of it before the cops trace it back to them.
Re: (Score:2)
Cops carry both lethal and (only sometimes) non-lethal weapons for a reason.
Can you guess why?
Easy (Score:2)
Yes.
A Constitutional Rat's Nest (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
"If the 2nd Amendment is a civil right, what purpose do arms serve the citizen"
Remaining citizens rather than slaves....
Whatever small arms the U.S. military has access to, the U.S. citizen is supposed to have access to.
Re:A Constitutional Rat's Nest (Score:4, Interesting)
In 1789 "arms" meant a musket or a flint lock pistol that fired a miniball, at most twice a minute.
I'm not sure that's true. Based on the earliest American dictionary [uchicago.edu], it seems they took arms to mean "weapons." Note that it includes examples of "arming a militia" or "arming a country," and discusses arms as "weapons, or means of attack or resistance."
So I'm not sure you can rule out any weapon of the day, certainly not knives and swords, but also cannons and ships.
Re:A Constitutional Rat's Nest (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
On the one had, I agree that a bunch of idiots wandering around with stun guns is preferable to a bunch of idiots wandering around with real guns. Not only are they less lethal than firearms, but they have a limited range so that limits the collateral damage they can do if misused.
On the other hand, the notion that using the weapon won't kill the victim may make the owner more likely to use the weapon, resulting in more injuries.
Hmm...
=Smidge=
Re:Short-sighted refusal (Score:2)
Yea, but,,, what effective non-killing electrical weapons are there?
The cheap stun-gun devices are not effective, and the only brand that is effective (Taser--the only one that the [US] police bother to use) regularly results in deaths*.
*('course, a lot of those deaths involve aggravating circumstances (obesity, drugs, ect),,,, but it is a rather odd concidence that a lot of people seem to...
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Governments and their enforcement branches do not want civilians to have the means of defending themselves from those same government enforcers. Their goal is to keep the public totally defenseless. A defenseless citizenry is easily controlled.
this makes literally no sense in today's age. modern militaries have leaps and bounds better weapons than anything civilians could possess. even worse, this operates on the premise that the only way to have civilization is through constant fear of one another. that's a terrible model of humanity, and no one should want a part of it.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
modern militaries have leaps and bounds better weapons than anything civilians could possess.
Infantry small arms have not significantly changed in a very long time, and of course civilians can posses small arms commonly borne by infantry.
Re: (Score:2)
And yet, we have lost our wars in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, where the only weapons those nations had to face the most powerful army that ever existed in the history of planet earth.....was those same said rifles. Just something to consider.
Re: (Score:3)
the only weapons those nations had to face the most powerful army that ever existed in the history of planet earth.....was those same said rifles.
wow, so much ignorance. The ONLY weapons? Do you realize that the human spirit is the most powerful weapon?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Yes....
But I also understand the difference of unarmed human spirit....and armed human spirit.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh hey, it looks like your tinfoil hat fell off.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.thepolemicist.net/2... [thepolemicist.net]
Re: (Score:2)
1) Define "assault weapon" (I doubt you are capable)
2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Those are considered ordinance/artillery, not small arms. Different category. Such things as cannons were usually owned by towns, lords (titled deeded land owners), and vessels (ships in many ways are akin to mini villages, this is why captains often have similar rights - ie: ability to marry).
Re: (Score:2)
usually injures, maims, or kills its victim?
You mean like cars?
Re: (Score:2)
However, U.S. federal and State laws have been eroding this constitutional right for decades
There once was a constitutional right to own slaves, are you making the argument that the constitution is not to be changed?