
You have the right to bear arms, not “electrical” arms, court declares - alexcasalboni
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/03/you-have-the-right-to-bear-arms-not-electrical-arms-court-declares/
======
nicobn
This judgment will almost certainly be overturned by higher courts. The "right
to bear arms" has never been interpreted by the S.C. as the right to bear
"lethal arms", nor the right to bear "military" arms. The S.C., in its recent
Heller judgment, interprets "arms" as "weapons".

~~~
bradleyjg
Heller contained this paragraph:

 _We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and
carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons
protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think
that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting
the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” See 4 Blackstone 148–149
(1769); 3 B. Wilson, Works of the Honourable James Wilson 79 (1804); J.
Dunlap, The New-York Justice 8 (1815); C. Humphreys, A Compendium of the
Common Law in Force in Kentucky 482 (1822); 1 W. Russell, A Treatise on Crimes
and Indictable Misdemeanors 271–272 (1831); H. Stephen, Summary of the
Criminal Law 48 (1840); E. Lewis, An Abridgment of the Criminal Law of the
United States 64 (1847); F. Wharton, A Treatise on the Criminal Law of the
United States 726 (1852). See also State v. Langford, 10 N. C. 381, 383–384
(1824); O’Neill v. State, 16 Ala. 65, 67 (1849); English v. State, 35 Tex.
473, 476 (1871); State v. Lanier, 71 N. C. 288, 289 (1874)._

The Massachusetts court found that electrical weapons are "unusual" and
"dangerous per se". The US Supreme Court, which is the only court that may
overturn this ruling, might disagree, but it's hardly a slam dunk.

~~~
bitwize
Cops commonly use tasers to subdue suspects. Is that a common enough use of an
electrical weapon?

Ultimately it doesn't matter what the SC thinks. It's still pretty much
illegal to own a gun in eastern Massachusetts. Banners gonna ban.

~~~
CognitiveLens
Not sure what you mean that it doesn't matter what the SC thinks - if they
rule that states cannot ban the use of stun guns, then the states have to
comply. What workarounds are there?

~~~
bitwize
They can pass regulations that make owning, manufacturing, or selling such a
weapon a pain in the ass. There's a whole category of crimes that
automatically turn into much more serious crimes when you append "...with a
deadly weapon" to the original crime. The government can arrest people and
charge them with a trivial crime that turns into a felony because the suspect
was carrying a weapon.

Or they could just do what they already do with guns: require a permit to
carry the thing and then simply refuse to issue permits. As I said, guns are
effectively illegal in the Boston area, and _Heller_ did fuck all to change
that.

------
jessaustin
_She appealed her 2013 conviction, on Second Amendment and self-defense
grounds, claiming she had a right to the weapon to protect herself from what
she said was an abusive father of her children... She was caught with the
device outside a grocery store after allowing the authorities, who were
looking for a shoplifter, to search her purse._

That's a pretty sympathetic defendant. Somehow I doubt the Massachusetts court
will get the last word on this one.

~~~
andreyf
A sympathetic defendant doesn't really matter as a ruling would affect
everyone, including some less sympathetic people. The quote of the opinion
makes a good case that although by some measures electrocuting someone with
50k volts is less dangerous than poking a hole in them with a bullet, it may
still be "rationally [banned] in the interest of public health, safety, or
welfare".

I don't think she'll get very far if she's going to keep arguing she should be
allowed to have something that's not a gun because of the Second Amendment.

~~~
CapitalistCartr
The Supreme Court has ruled before that the Second Amendment isn't limited to
guns. This case is nearly certain to be overturned.

[http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-
conspiracy/wp/2014...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-
conspiracy/wp/2014/09/05/amicus-brief-supporting-the-second-amendment-right-
to-own-and-carry-a-stun-in-massachusetts/)

~~~
jessaustin
Indeed, it ruled quite recently, in _Heller:

Before addressing the verbs “keep” and “bear,” we interpret their object:
“Arms.” The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not
specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military
capacity. Thus, the most natural reading of “keep Arms” in the Second
Amendment is to “have weapons.”_

The Massachusetts court, emphasizing "military use", seems to be just thumbing
its nose at SC.

------
keslag
So potentially non-lethal means of self defence are bad, but a weapon that can
slaughter a classroom are A-okay. As a Canadian, American logic is kinda
terrifying.

~~~
angersock
Another way of saying "potentially non-lethal" is "lethal", and another way of
saying "can slaughter a classroom" is "can be used to not slaughter a
classroom".

These "non-lethal" weapons are more likely to get you hurt than either
disengaging entirely or engaging with a deadly weapon--to wit, one of the
reasons they have officers and MPs go through CS gas/mace is to show them that
they remain functional and as such they should never assume that somebody
they've used a non-lethal weapon on is incapacitated.

~~~
keslag
QED

------
qzcx
I don't have any interest in owning guns. Simply because I didn't grow up
around them and I would prefer to not have to have the responsibility or risk
involved with owning one. However, I do have a bat in my home near my bed just
in case. A taser sounds like an appealing option which is much less lethal
than a handgun, but certainly gives me a better defense. I honestly don't
understand the reasoning on this case.

~~~
15155
> but certainly gives me a better defense

Assuming you don't miss.

A firearm is a much safer tool for personal self-defense, especially home-
defense.

Knives are highly dangerous to their (usually untrained) users, bats have the
same issue: you're getting too close to the threat. Also, these mechanisms of
self-defense are widely seen as heinous. If you stab someone, bash their head,
even in self-defense: that's a heinous and inhumane way to defend yourself.

Tasers have the limitation of a slow-moving (harder-to-aim) projectile that
may-or-may not penetrate clothing (it certainly won't penetrate heavier
leather, etc.).

Assuming you don't miss (in which case you're not going to be able to fire
again with the civilian-oriented tasers), you are praying that it's enough to
actually stop the threat.

What if there is more than one assailant?

~~~
qzcx
Not saying I wouldn't still keep the bat. But honestly, I'm sort of a pacifist
as far as guns are concerned. I don't see them being necessary for most people
in a modern society. (Yeah, I understand the whole "we need them to defend us
from a evil government or criminals" argument. I'm not looking to get into a
debate about it.)

Also, Using a bat is more heinous than a gun? What society are you from?
Someone can be subdued but not killed with a bat, but a gun puts them down for
good.

~~~
15155
> Also, Using a bat is more heinous than a gun? What society are you from?
> Someone can be subdued but not killed with a bat, but a gun puts them down
> for good.

I would rather stop the threat cleanly with a firearm. I'd also rather subject
myself, my family to far less physical risk by not thinking I can macho it out
with a baseball bat. Brain damage, broken limbs, missing teeth caused by a
baseball bat are widely viewed as inhumane, regardless of the situation - self
defense included.

> I don't see them being necessary for most people in a modern society.

You should share that view with the next police officer you see carrying a
firearm. In the US, any will do.

> What society are you from?

I'm from the United States of America. US courts, even in the most self-
defense averse areas tend to agree with this view.

------
DanBC
> She was caught with the device outside a grocery store after allowing the
> authorities, who were looking for a shoplifter, to search her purse.

"Do you have a warrant? I'd prefer to wait until you get a warrant"

~~~
hurin
She didn't need to consent. Once she did it's probably all fair game.

~~~
Glyptodon
I'm sure it would have gone well if she tried to not consent...

~~~
jessaustin
This is why good citizens do not consent. Eventually the novelty will wear
off.

------
bcg1
This actually might make sense is a warped sort of way, if you interpret the
"being necessary to the security of a free state" as literal and integral to
the 2nd amendment... it is hard to argue that stun guns would be useful in
defending against impending tyranny.

It is a stupid law though, I can't believe that people choose to live in a
state where you can't protect yourself a weapon designed to inflict the least
amount of permanent damage necessary

~~~
15155
The Supreme Court of the United States and most legal scholars (post- _Heller_
) agree that the justification for the Second Amendment is not a prescribed
limitation.

"being necessary to the security of a free State" is _a_ reason the Second
Amendment exists, not the only reason or one that limitations may be paved
around.

The comma makes all the difference. The original text is only marginally
meaningful, post- _Heller_ , as the interpretation that individuals may own
and bear arms (specifically semi-automatic handguns - presented as those in "
_common use_ ") is now law - carrying the same weight as if it were written
two hundred years ago.

I was so happy the day that decision came through: small-minded individuals
making arguments based on flawed interpretations of semantics were immediately
put to rest.

\------

re: stun guns - I agree that this is ridiculous, but a firearm is a much
better tool for self-defense (not that you shouldn't be allowed to make that
bad choice).

~~~
PhantomGremlin
> I was so happy the day that decision came through

District of Columbia v. Heller and the related McDonald v. City of Chicago
were both decided 5-4 in favor of gun freedom. One more "proud Latina" and
things could have turned out very differently.

It's amazing how preserving our fundamental rights often comes down to the
personal prejudices of Supreme Court justices.

~~~
15155
Hopefully Ginsburg stands down in the next presidency. One can hope.

------
protomyth
Does anyone know of anyone keeping a database of state supreme court / federal
district rulings and what the supreme court decided on them (held, overturn,
refused to hear)?

// I'm in the camp that this will be overturned

------
nso95
I don't think the founding fathers envisioned ak47s or ar15s either.

~~~
bpodgursky
The founding fathers envisioned a militia which could counter and if necessary
overthrow a standing army. They unquestionably envisioned a militia having all
weapons that the army had.

~~~
themartorana
This, in so many ways. If you want to espouse what the Founding Fathers
envisioned, then put yourself in the shoes of someone who just led a fledgling
populace to a bloody victory over an oppressive monarchy half-way across the
world.

The Battles of Lexington and Concord were preceded by a secret British order
to confiscate and destroy the military supplies (rifles, ammo, cannons) of the
militia that had been formed following tensions between Patriots and the
British after the Boston Tea Party. [0]

So the very first act of military aggression - and the "shot heard round the
world" \- was at least in part the last resort of the militia after a failed
attempt to confiscate guns.

So when someone considers what the Founding Fathers actually envisioned, it is
absolutely that the people of the United States _always_ be able to stand up
to a standing army. We can argue the current practicality of citizens owning
nukes, but that doesn't remove the spirit of the amendment.

[0]
[http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_Lexington_and_Conc...](http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_Lexington_and_Concord)

