• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Stun gun lawsuits claim bans violate constitutional right to bear arms

NonoBadDog

Hates Kittens
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2014
Messages
17,226
Reaction score
6,895
Location
Mountains
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Stun gun lawsuits claim bans violate constitutional right to bear arms
Five states and several cities outlaw possession of stun guns, even for self-defense. But such bans could fall by the wayside in the coming year as Second Amendment advocates ramp up court challenges against jurisdictions that deem the weapons illegal.The D.C. Council last week approved legislation to roll back a city ban on possessing stun guns, as well as a requirement for residents to register pepper spray with police, after the ban was challenged in court.
Officials in New Jersey and New Orleans are working to settle similar lawsuits brought this year claiming bans on stun gun ownership violate residents’ constitutional right to bear arms. Lawyer Stephen Stamboulieh, who is representing clients in both cases, said agreements to settle will require judges to strike down the bans or lawmakers to revise the regulations.
Stun guns are designed to immobilize attackers through high-voltage electric shocks that are administered either through direct contact with prongs or by striking a target with dartlike projectiles. People who have gone to court to seek the right to carry the devices say they would prefer having a nonlethal weapon for self-defense rather than a firearm but have cited Second Amendment protections in defending their right to do so.
Stun gun lawsuits claim bans violate constitutional right to bear arms - Washington Times

I guess tasers look mean. Lethal defense, non lethal defense, doesn't matter. They just don't like the idea of a person defending themselves I guess.
 
Stun gun lawsuits claim bans violate constitutional right to bear arms

Stun gun lawsuits claim bans violate constitutional right to bear arms - Washington Times

I guess tasers look mean. Lethal defense, non lethal defense, doesn't matter. They just don't like the idea of a person defending themselves I guess.

As always if you just accept laws then the law stands constitutional or not. Even if a court challenge fails it is not the end of the road. It is far better to challenge and oppose this idiocy before the law is passed. No law can be passed with huge public objection. That is our job, not to sit complacent waiting.
 
In many states stun guns, tasers, EID's, and pepper spray are regulated far more than regular firearms. Which really doesn't make sense since they are considered a non-lethal defensive weapon. There are even states that don't allow felons to own them either. Just proves to me that there are those out there that don't care about personal defense, just control of the population.

Something worth looking at
 
While I believe they should be legal, I don't see how the 2nd Amendment applies to them. They're not arms.

Again, they should still be legal imo.
 
While I believe they should be legal, I don't see how the 2nd Amendment applies to them. They're not arms.

Again, they should still be legal imo.

Caetano v Massachusetts addressed stun guns and the 2A. I don't see why it's still an issue, other than Democratic politicians love to ignore governmental restrictions on the 2A.
 
Stun gun lawsuits claim bans violate constitutional right to bear arms

Stun gun lawsuits claim bans violate constitutional right to bear arms - Washington Times

I guess tasers look mean. Lethal defense, non lethal defense, doesn't matter. They just don't like the idea of a person defending themselves I guess.

Anyone who thinks anti-2nd amendment loons will stop at just firearms are fooling themselves. In the UK for example its illegal to own pepper spray and stun guns.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/dec/16/the-three-illegal-weapons-bought-over-amazoncouk
 
Weapons are fine. Using them in aggression is not.

It really is absurd how various cities and states infringe on our right to own weapons for self-defense; even gun-friendly states like my own has all kinds of stupid rules about knives.
 
TBH I think that *some* civilians might be better off defending themselves with tasers than with handguns. After all, taser victims have a far lower fatality rate.
 
TBH I think that *some* civilians might be better off defending themselves with tasers than with handguns. After all, taser victims have a far lower fatality rate.

using a taser against someone who doesn't present to you a reasonable believe that the attacker may cause you severe bodily harm is probably going to be ruled illegal (cops have some leeway in demanding compliance that they can enforce with non lethal means such as tasers or mace-stuff that private citizens cannot do. I for example-cannot mace someone for refusing to leave my front yard but a cop can after he orders the guy to leave and he doesnt)

If you use a taser against someone who does present that reasonable chance of killing or maiming you, you might well die. cops are taught that if someone threatens you with an instrument that they can kill you with, the PROPER response is your firearm. if a perp threatens you with a club, a knife, a sword or a firearm, you use your firearm.
 
using a taser against someone who doesn't present to you a reasonable believe that the attacker may cause you severe bodily harm is probably going to be ruled illegal (cops have some leeway in demanding compliance that they can enforce with non lethal means such as tasers or mace-stuff that private citizens cannot do. I for example-cannot mace someone for refusing to leave my front yard but a cop can after he orders the guy to leave and he doesnt)

If you use a taser against someone who does present that reasonable chance of killing or maiming you, you might well die. cops are taught that if someone threatens you with an instrument that they can kill you with, the PROPER response is your firearm. if a perp threatens you with a club, a knife, a sword or a firearm, you use your firearm.

You think that mentality might be why our cops kill far, far more citizens than, say, the cops in the UK or Germany do?
 
You think that mentality might be why our cops kill far, far more citizens than, say, the cops in the UK or Germany do?

Do we also have more people willing to attack cops that the UK or Germany does?
 
You think that mentality might be why our cops kill far, far more citizens than, say, the cops in the UK or Germany do?

Uh no. its because the drug gangs are well armed and a certain part of our culture has always glorified thugs shooting it out with cops going back to Jesse James and John Dillinger
 
Do we also have more people willing to attack cops that the UK or Germany does?

Disrespect != attacking. Too many cops in the US are trained, yes, trained to be trigger-happy.
 
Uh no. its because the drug gangs are well armed

So if they didn't have all those guns, even handguns--which you and I know are the number one weapon used in homicides in the US--this wouldn't be as big of a problem?

and a certain part of our culture has always glorified thugs shooting it out with cops going back to Jesse James and John Dillinger

Yes, that's exactly what fueled Al Capone's rise to power. /snark
 
Disrespect != attacking. Too many cops in the US are trained, yes, trained to be trigger-happy.

I did not conflate disrespect with attacking. How many cops have been killed/attacked here as opposed to in the UK or Germany?
 
So if they didn't have all those guns, even handguns--which you and I know are the number one weapon used in homicides in the US--this wouldn't be as big of a problem?

But they do have them. What's the plan to disarm them?
 
But they do have them. What's the plan to disarm them?

That is the question, now, isn't it? Because guns don't grow on trees, you know.
 
That is the question, now, isn't it? Because guns don't grow on trees, you know.

No, but the criminals have boatloads. How do you plan to disarm them now?
 
No, but the criminals have boatloads. How do you plan to disarm them now?

And where did I even remotely suggest that that would be the optimal plan? Wouldn't it be better to take a look at a long-term approach to see how gang members are acquiring these guns in the first place?
 
So if they didn't have all those guns, even handguns--which you and I know are the number one weapon used in homicides in the US--this wouldn't be as big of a problem?



Yes, that's exactly what fueled Al Capone's rise to power. /snark

I looked and I fail to see a point you are trying to make. saying other countries don't have as many guns is exactly why Eurobanner solutions to the USA are worthless
 
And where did I even remotely suggest that that would be the optimal plan?

No, it would be optimal to have immediate disarmament of criminals.

Wouldn't it be better to take a look at a long-term approach to see how gang members are acquiring these guns in the first place?

We already know where, which is why we have laws against straw purchasing:

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf

We also know that the penalty for felony perjury on the Form 4473 isn't enforced:

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/grants/239272.pdf
 
How to keep guns out of the hands of criminals is a separate question. It is not relevant to the fundamental, individual right of the rest of us to keep and bear arms. We would have that right, just the same, even if no criminals had guns.
 
I looked and I fail to see a point you are trying to make. saying other countries don't have as many guns is exactly why Eurobanner solutions to the USA are worthless

Because of Europe's lower homicide rates? Why do they have such lower homicide rates across the pond, Turtle?
 
Because of Europe's lower homicide rates? Why do they have such lower homicide rates across the pond, Turtle?

Why have they always had such lower homicide rates, even when firearms were more common and less restricted?
 
No, it would be optimal to have immediate disarmament of criminals.

Okay. Since you're the ones proposing this, how do we go about doing that?

We already know where, which is why we have laws against straw purchasing:

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf

We also know that the penalty for felony perjury on the Form 4473 isn't enforced:

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/grants/239272.pdf

As I've said before, we need a LOT more enforcement against straw purchases.
 
Back
Top Bottom