States Are Still Banning Electric Weapons For Self-Defense
States Are Still Banning Electric Weapons For Self-Defense
In 2013, the CEO of TASER International estimated that 70% of those purchasing their C2 model Taser were women. It’s no wonder that these small, effective, and non-lethal means of self-defense have proved so popular. But despite their popularity and effectiveness, five states and a handful of localities continue to ban all electric weapons. Regardless of their intent, these laws often have a disproportionate impact on working class women. And the punishment is often severe. In Massachusetts, for instance, anyone caught with an electric weapon can be fined -- or even jailed.
That’s what happened to Jaime Caetano. A friend gave Caetano a stun gun after an abusive boyfriend beat her and sent her to the hospital. When the boyfriend showed up again - threatening and cursing her - she drew the stun gun and told him to leave her alone. It worked. But the state quickly put that to an end. One day when Caetano was out shopping, the store she was in was robbed (a grim reminder that individuals most in need of self-defense live closer to crime). When police arrived, they conducted a routine search of everyone on the premises. When they found Caetano’s stun gun, they charged her for possessing an electric weapon. Under Massachusetts law, the maximum punishment for the offense is two-and-a-half years in jail.
Caetano appealed her case all the way to the Supreme Court. She argued that Massachusetts’ ban on electric weapons violated her Second Amendment right to self-defense. The state in turn argued that since electric weapons didn’t exist at the time of the founding, they can’t be protected by the Constitution.
In a one-and-a-half page per curiam decision, the Supreme Court made short work (literally) of the state’s argument. Due largely to Justice Scalia’s recent death, the Court’s eight members avoided a wide-ranging opinion that struck down the Massachusetts law. Instead, the Court simply pointed out that the Second Amendment clearly protects “instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,” The Court vacated Caetano’s conviction and ordered Massachusetts to hear her case in light of established Supreme Court precedent. Two Justices - Alito and Thomas - would have gone even further and declared the law unconstitutional on the spot.
When her case returned to Massachusetts, Caetano reached an agreement with the state and was cleared of all charges and declared not guilty. The law that bans electric weapons, however, remains on the books. And police continue to vigorously enforce it. In 2016, police searched Brittany Rourke when she came to the hospital seeking treatment. Rourke works late hours and has been mugged multiple times after leaving work. At the hospital, police discovered she had a stun gun and charged her. Rourke and others have challenged the law in Massachusetts state court. But the state is still defending it with the very same arguments that the Supreme Court clearly dismissed in Caetano.
That's why the Center for Individual Rights (where I work) filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of three Massachusetts residents who want an effective, non-lethal means of self-defense. Each of the citizens have their reasons. For instance, one of them believes that lethal violence is always wrong - even in self defense. The state’s ban on electric weapons leaves her with the options of buying a firearm and violating her beliefs, or remaining defenseless.
In response to these cases, Massachusetts has continued to make the unconvincing claim that stun guns are not protected because they are “dangerous and unusual” weapons that were not in existence at the time the Second Amendment was enacted. If anything, electric weapons are less dangerous than many of those used in 1789. They provide an effective and accessible means of self-defense to thousands - especially women - all while reducing the risk of unintended fatal action.
In a world where many individuals often find themselves in threatening situations, one would think that lawmakers would welcome a non-lethal means of enabling people to stand up to their attackers. Massachusetts and the four other states that ban electric weapons should let people decide for themselves what means of self-defense is best for them. And if they refuse, the federal courts should establish clearly that everyone has a right to self-defense.
Comments
Post a Comment