Mich Court of Appeals: Open Carry Protected, Stun Gun Ban Void

[TPaine7]

Courts are finally reading the Second Amendment and Heller as if they are the supreme law of the land and an authoritative interpretation of that law, and not an obstacle to be overcome by legal sophistry:

People v. Yanna (Mich. Ct. App. June 26, 2012) holds that Michigan’s stun gun ban violates the Second Amendment. I filed an amicus brief on behalf of AWARE (Arming Women Against Rape & Endangerment) in this case, and also wrote a law review article on the subject (Nonlethal Self-Defense, (Almost Entirely) Nonlethal Weapons, and the Rights To Keep and Bear Arms and Defend Life, 62 Stanford Law Review 199 (2009)), so I’m especially pleased by the result. I hope also that this leads to similar results in some of the other places which ban stun guns — D.C., Hawaii, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Virgin Islands, and Wisconsin, as well as the several cities that take a similar view, some of which are in relatively right-to-keep-and-bear-arms-friendly areas.

http://www.volokh.com/2012/06/27/michigan-court-of-appeals-strikes-down-stun-gun-ban-says-second-amendment-applies-to-open-carry-in-public/

[Remmah2]

1. Very interesting.

An acknowledgment that a device other than a firearm is covered by the 2A.

And to think there are cities out there that want pocket knife control.

[Meiko]

2. Why the big

uproar against tasers? They are the perfect alternative to those who don't want to carry a handgun. They are extremely effective in warding off an attack and provide more than adequate time for the victim to escape, plus they are not usually lethal. They are still considered weapons and should be covered under the 2A.

[Callisto32]

4. I have often wondered this.

Bans against less-likely-to-be-lethal (just my preferred term) weapons have always struck me has having even less sense-make than do bans on firearms.

[ileus]

6. but they hurt people and can be scary...

[sarisataka]

7. Excellent point

Even though I am very much in the pro-firearms camp, I am aware many (the majority?) of people has no business carrying a firearm for protection. Reason being they would never actually bring themselves to use it in their defense.
For those people a less-lethal SD option is just the ticket. They are more likely to use it, less-lethal weapons are almost as effective as many firearms- and looking at it from a very callous viewpoint, if the person is overcome by their attacker the criminal did not just gain access to a gun.

[Clames]

3. Usually the electronic crack of an armed taser...

...is enough to deter. No good reason to keep people from carrying them for defense.

[Starboard Tack]

5. There should be no restrictions on carrying stun guns, or pepper spray for SD

They are the only tool designed specifically for SD and hopefully, more people who like to carry will make the switch to this highly effective, yet far less lethal tool.