Tuesday, August 16, 2016

DC Residents Challenge Ban on Stun Guns

Image of Crystal Wright from conservativeblackchick.com

On August 2nd, 2016, another case was filed to regain Second Amendment rights in the District of Columbia.  This case is likely to succeed, and it may set some interesting precedents.  It is a case that sues to eliminate the unconstitutional ban on stun guns and Tasers in the District. From cnsnews.com:
The plaintiffs in this case—Crystal Wright, Brendan Turner, and Traci Dean—have indicated that they have a legitimate need to defend themselves, but each has stated a desire to use a Taser or stun gun against an assailant rather than a gun, knife, or some other form of lethal force. The plaintiffs argue that pursuant to Heller, the Second Amendment extends to “all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.”

Accordingly, the District “may not completely ban the keeping and bearing of arms for self-defense that are not unusually dangerous, deny individuals the right to carry arms in non-sensitive places,” or “deprive individuals of the right to keep or carry arms in an arbitrary and capricious manner.”

From the case filing  1:2016cv01556 against the District of Columbia and Cathy Lanier(pdf) :
D.C. Code § 7-2502.01(a) provides with exceptions not pertinent to plaintiffs that “no person or organization in the District of Columbia (“District”) shall receive, possess, control, transfer, offer for sale, sell, give, or deliver any destructive device.” 
D.C. Code § 7-2501.01(7) (D) defines “Destructive device” inter alia as, “Any device designed or redesigned, made or remade, or readily converted or restored, and intended to stun or disable a person by means of electric shock.”  
Thus, the District of Columbia outlaws the private possession by
plaintiffs of a Taser or stun gun within the District.
 The lawsuit cites the recent per curiam decision in Caetano v. Massachusetts:

Given the decision in Heller, The District of Columbia may not completely ban the keeping and bearing of arms for self-defense that are not unusually dangerous, deny individuals the right to carry arms in non-sensitive places, deprive individuals of the right to keep or carry arms in an arbitrary and capricious manner, or impose regulations on the right to keep and carry arms that are inconsistent with the Second Amendment. See Caetano v. Massachusetts, 577 U.S. ___ (2016); Heller v. District of Columbia, 801 F.3d 26
In Caetano(pdf), the Supreme Court unanimously held that stun guns were protected under the Second Amendment.  It is hard to see how the District court will be able to ignore that recent, unanimous, ruling. The District is already under legal threat that their abusively restrictive gun carry permit scheme is a de-facto ban.

It will be interesting to see how the D.C. lawyers attempt to wiggle out of this lawsuit.

 ©2016 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch


Anonymous said...

The important point in this case is there is NO definition of what arms are. we have the constitutional right to keep and bear ARMS, In the days of the old Indians in this country one of the arms they carried was a rock tied to a stick called a war club. Used just like the mace and chain of Knights. I have the head of an ancient war club found in my front yard. it is estimated to be more than 10,000 years old. The point is any thing can be used as a weapon and since there is no definition of what arms are anything and everything qualifies under that guaranteed right. It is so vast that anyone carrying a ball point pen could be charged with carrying a deadly weapon concealed. Well at least I know I could kill with a ball point pen. I also know how to save a life with a ball point pen. In this case is it a deadly weapon or a tool to save a life? in the same vein is a 44 magnum a tool to save a life or only used to kill. If someone is being attacked with a bowie knife and a passer by happens to stop that attack by blowing the knife wheedling attacker in half stopping that attack, it is both a life taker and a life saver. An electric shock they may cause you to pee your pants is not as dangerous as a 44 magnum but either one can stop an attack. personally I prefer the 44 magnum approach, it stops any future attacks by the same person. A tazer require getting to close.

Anonymous said...

I keep waiting for people to point to Illinois 7th circuit, which intentionally AVOIDED answering a question asked of it, as it "combined" cases and the combination was successful in defeating the Illinois prohibition of carriage of arms (kinda).
The stun gun/tazer portion of MOORE (gotta love that plaintiff choice - Micheal Moore) was absolutely ignored, pretending it wasn't a part of Moore.

Caetano was crystal clear - the DC ban is toast, as is the New Jersey ban challenged too.

But what explains this happening? I submit this to all folks - they are "giving in' on energy based weapons, one right after the other, in order to say, when the time comes, that they have "given' enough on dusting the gun control.....and so "to be fair" the prohibition on manufacture of select fires will remian (possibly the excuse being also - "until it is ripe").

The fact of the matter is simple. Under the Doctrine of Selective Incorporation, almost every gun control law on the books cannot withstand the Scrutiny tests, which MUST BE of the "Strict" variety. Far too much First Amendment Case Law is put into jeopardy if those gun grabbing laws do not fall. As demonstrated in Caetano, when push comes to shove, when scotus has to choose between gun control and court authority to set precedent, the gun control LOSES - and by a perfect margin.

I submit also that a full frontal assault should be being put together right now, to be filed January 31st, all over this country. Every district, every territory, every state, every circuit - all places - to END the pathetic attempt to keep the mindless gun control built in place. Truth says it has to go - even by their own measures - it all has to go. Period.

Ironic ain't it? The grabbers are going to have to do what we gun "nuts' have been telling them all along - craft laws pertaining to guns OUTSIDE ownership, buing selling inhereting and gifting, outside their carriage, instead ALL pointed at what is really unlawful use- as in USED in ACTUAL crimes with actual flesh and blood human beings and their property too. Lose it - they have to join us, and do what we told them all along needs to be done!