Not everyone is comfortable with the idea of taking a life. Still others just aren’t fans of guns. Then there are people who can’t carry a firearm for whatever reason, including just being too young under their state’s concealed carry law.
For a number of reasons, some people prefer less lethal options in their personal defense tools. I also happen to think there’s a time and a place for them, so it’s a good thing to have available.
But it’s not available everywhere.
Some places have so freaked out over things like stun guns that they’ve banned them. New York City is such a place, and now an appeals court is being asked to listen to their so-called reasons.
A coalition of gun rights groups are asking a federal appeals court to overturn a ruling upholding New York City’s ban on Tasers and stun guns, arguing the restrictions are unconstitutional.
…
In March, U.S. District Court Judge Edgardo Ramos rejected the lawsuit, saying the plaintiffs “failed” to provide any evidence that stun guns and Tasers are in “common use” and that “no reasonable jury could return a verdict” that the electronic weapons are protected by the Second Amendment.
“The Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.” Ramos wrote in the ruling. “Therefore, Plaintiffs must show that stun guns and tasers are in common use today, and that they are typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.”
I find that statement about “weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes” problematic. That’s one of the issues of the whole “in common use” argument. One has to prove that an item is in common use, but stun gun sales are largely unregulated in most places. That means it’s difficult to provide official government statistics.
However, a little research does give us something of a hint.
First, in 2023, stun gun sales topped $7.5 billion globally. One dealer estimates that the average cost of a consumer-grade stun gun is about $400. That means that in 2023 alone, at least 18.75 million stun guns were sold throughout the world.
That’s just one year, and a great many of those were sold here in the United States.
I’m sorry, but that sounds like “in common use” to me. Additionally, we don’t exactly have a world rife with stories of criminals using stun guns. They’re actually kind of terrible for criminal use in most cases. Bad guys want compliance, not limp, quivering lumps of jelly, which is how the public tends to view the victims of stun guns.
Then we have the argument Ramos makes that no reasonable jury could rule that the weapons were protected by the Second Amendment. That bothers me on a personal level because I tend to believe I’m pretty reasonable in most cases. I could most definitely argue that they’re covered by the Second Amendment and that regulations against them are an infringement against it. It’s not that hard, actually.
I also have no doubt there are at least 11 other people who would agree.
Now, though, the appeals court is being asked to hear this case, and we can hope the judges there have more sense than Ramos apparently has.
Editor’s Note: Thanks to President Trump’s leadership and bold policies, America’s economy is back on track.
Help us continue to report on the president’s economic successes and combat the lies of the Democrats. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your membership.
Read the full article here
