Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.6.2
Site Design by Sekimori

« National Firearm Law Seminar roster | Main | Oklahoma expands self-defense »

MI court strikes law forbidding stun guns

Posted by David Hardy · 24 April 2011 09:50 AM

Decision here. It's a trial court decision, and the prosecution has said it will appeal. The court notes that the law entirely forbids their possession, like the handguns bans at issue in Heller and McDonald, and raises in a fn the significance of Heller's reference to protecting guns "in common use" in light of the fact that a new technology may not go into common use simply because it's outlawed before it achieves that status.

Via the Volokh Conspiracy, where Prof. Volokh links to his Stanford L. Rev. article on the very subject.

· Chicago aftermath

7 Comments | Leave a comment

Anonymous | April 24, 2011 1:56 PM | Reply

another strike against demagogues

Graystar | April 25, 2011 6:59 AM | Reply

Personally, I think stun guns should illegal. They're about a good as pepper spray for defense, they're lethal, and they've already been used to kidnap people. Just the other day a woman used a stun gun to subdue a pregnant woman, kill her, and cut her baby out of her.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/04/19/national/main20055507.shtml

Stun guns are definitely a weapon where the potential for abuse far outweighs any benefit. Just look at how cops abuse people with stun guns!

Matthew Carberry | April 25, 2011 12:57 PM | Reply

graystar,

That's satire right?

Cause, unlike the idiot in Pittsburgh, if it is, you're doing it right.

If it's not, I disagree. =)

Ken | April 25, 2011 1:29 PM | Reply

One might just as easily argue that handguns shouldn't be protected, since they too are lethal, have a potential for misuse and require a person intent on using one for defense to get much closer than would be necessary with a properly scoped rifle.

Graystar | April 25, 2011 6:14 PM | Reply

Matthew Carberry wrote:
“That's satire right?”
No it’s not. I’m against stun guns completely.

Ken wrote:
“One might just as easily argue that handguns shouldn't be protected, since they too are lethal, have a potential for misuse and require a person intent on using one for defense to get much closer than would be necessary with a properly scoped rifle.”

The difference, though, is that everyone knows handguns are lethal...it’s why we’re carrying them. The problem with stun guns is that everyone thinks they’re safe. They’re not. Also, I wasn’t just referring to the mere potential for abuse, but weighed it against the benefit provided. Stun guns are very limited as defense weapons. You have to practically be in contact with the perp to use it, it’s virtually impossible to use against two or more aggressors, and then there’s the fact that you’re relying on a battery operated electronic device to save your life.

I’m certainly against any law that tries to ban small concealable handguns on the basis that they’re preferred by criminals...simply because such guns are still effective tools for self-defense. But laws exist that ban firearms that are not effective for self-defense, such as certain disguised firearms.

The underlying fundamental right behind the Second Amendment is defense of life...not just having guns. That’s what the Supreme Court found in Heller. And if a particular weapon is poorly suited to that task, then I think it’s fair game for a ban. And I think stun guns are definitely poor weapons for defense.

sgtlmj | April 25, 2011 10:00 PM | Reply

Graystar: You assert correctly that the 2A is about defense, but you would allow some subjective test on whether a particular weapon is suited to that task? Who gets to make that decision?

A firearm might not be the right weapon for someone with physical or philosophical limitations, but you would support denying their right to using a alternative defensive device because someone determines that it's unsuitable?

I'm against any law which limits someone's options for self-defense, whether that be firearms, stun guns, pepper spray or a knife.

Sank | May 14, 2011 1:51 AM | Reply

From the PDF it looks like MI law groups stun guns and tasers together into one group of defensive electronic thingies, but that doesn't mean we have to.

I must point out the large difference between them. A stun gun consists of two terminals that must come in contact with your rival (direct contact like a 9V battery on your tongue), while a taser shoots electrode needles at your rival from a distance of 15 feet (Taser C2 civilian version).

A Taser is a VERY viable self-defense weapon. I suspect many criminals don't think you'll actually shoot your firearm at them unless pushed to the very limit of life and death, but I know for a fact that you pull a taser and yell "TASER TASER TASER" and they clam up and shut up and become very compliant instantly. I would say it's even better than a firearm at dissuading a rival to change his mind - If he's been a criminal for long then he knows you might actually pull the trigger of the taser, and he knows that he doesn't want to feel it again.

Leave a comment