The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
R.I. Stun Gun Ban Struck Down
The case is O'Neil v. Neronha, decided today by Judge William E. Smith (D.R.I.); Judge Smith expresses his disapproval of D.C. v. Heller (pp. 9-10 n.7), but applies it to hold that the stun gun ban is unconstitutional. Congratulations to lawyers Alan Beck, Stephen Stamboulieh, and Frank Saccoccio on the victory.
Shortly after D.C. v. Heller was decided, stun guns were banned in seven states, D.C., the Virgin Islands, several substantial cities, and some smaller towns. (I cataloged these in Nonlethal Self-Defense, (Almost Entirely) Nonlethal Weapons, and the Rights To Keep and Bear Arms and Defend Life, 62 Stanford Law Review 199 (2009).) But in Caetano v. Massachusetts (2016), the Court signaled that stun gun bans may well be unconstitutional, and lower courts and legislatures have largely heard the message.
By my count, since D.C. v. Heller stun gun bans have been invalidated or repealed in Hawaii, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, now Rhode Island, Wisconsin, D.C., the Virgin Islands, Overland Park (Kansas), and Annapolis, Baltimore, New Orleans, Philadelphia, Tacoma, and in four Maryland counties (Anne Arundel County, Baltimore County, Harford County, and Howard County). The Illinois Supreme Court, which had held that the Second Amendment secures a right to carry guns (a matter on which courts are split), has also held that the Second Amendment likewise secures a right to carry stun guns. The logic of this opinion would also invalidate, I think, the bans on irritant sprays (such as pepper spray and mace) in some Illinois towns (see pp. 246-47 of this article).
Stun gun bans remain in effect, to my knowledge, in
- New York, where a federal district court held that the state stun gun ban was unconstitutional, but a state trial court in a different case disagreed (yes, state courts can do that),
- Wilmington (Delaware) and the county in which it is located (New Castle County),
- plus some smaller towns.
Stun guns are also heavily regulated (e.g., with total bans on carrying in most places outside the home) in Connecticut and in some cities. New Jersey lawyer Dan Schmutter tells me that New Jersey likely also essentially bans carrying stun guns outside the home. For more, see this article, though the listing of restrictions in Appendix II is now out-of-date.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
In footnote 7, Judge Smith (a Bush II appointee) writes:
sick judicial burn.
Shall not be infringed.
It ain't that hard to understand, judge.
Public sentiment plays no role.
Query—why would the Framers draft an amendment that only applied to Americans in DC and federal territories?? So everyone acknowledges that the BoR didn’t apply to the states including Scalia and only limited Congress, so it’s just a strange amendment. Such a head scratcher. 😉
That's not what US v Miller held on 1939. The supreme court ruled then, in dicta, that the 2nd Amendment did apply to the states. Obviously the Article 1 Militia clause gave Congress authority to overrule state Weapons bans. But the first Congress didn't think it went far enough.
2A is a federalism provision. Now Scalia believes it was an amendment drafted to protect the RKBA of Americans in DC and federal territories because he believes it was drafted as an individual right unlike the rest of the BoR.
Scalia didn't write Miller, Miller was settled law when Scalia was in short pants. Scalia cited Miller, he didn't overrule a word of it, in fact he adopted the whole arms in common use holding from Miller. And Miller was about the RKBA in Arkansas and Oklahoma, not DC.
"The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power—'To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, ...' U.S.C.A.Const. art. 1, § 8. With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view."
Nor did Scalia say it only applied to DC and federal territory, it didn't come up then. But it did come up in Miller, and it came up later in McDonald.
I know you got your talking point, and you are sticking to it, but Miller blows it out of the water.
Lol, I don’t care about Miller…but you apparently do. I care about the 2A and text and tradition.
" Scalia cited Miller, he didn't overrule a word of it, in fact he adopted the whole arms in common use holding from Miller."
Bullshit.
"United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not
limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes."
Miller's holding was that, citizens were expected to show up for militia duty with their own lawfully owned weapons, the weapons 'in common use. So, essentially, it had to be legal to own weapons suitable for military use. And remanded for a determination as to whether a sawn off shotgun was such a weapon.
What had to be legal was driven by the right.
Scalia stood that on it's head, ruling that it was a right to own weapons that were lawfully owned and in common use. Instead of the right driving what had to be legal, he inverted it to make what was legal drive what you had a right to own.
The reason this is so critical, is that between Miller and Heller the Supreme court spent 78 years refusing every single case where the 2nd amendment was raised as an issue. During those 78 years numerous laws accumulated, warping the nature of commonly owned firearms, which had previously been identical to military firearms.
Creating a distinction between commonly owned arms and military arms which had never previously existed in the US.
Not taking a case for 78 years was probably a feature not a bug.
The court dodged a lot of cases between McDonald and NYRPC-2 v Braun, but none of those dodged cases set any national precedent. When NYRPC-2 comes out then there will be binding precedent, or a punt.
The dodged cases allowed an incredible number of laws to pile up that the Court is now reluctant to overturn, though stomping them when they first appeared would have been straightforward.
Such a passionate take on the RKBA…and yet the preface of the 2A undermines everything you wrote. 🙁
But guess what?? Our rights are not limited to the BoR…so we have a RKBA that predates the Constitution. Allah provides!!
The preface undermines nothing.
The right is guaranteed to individuals, so that when individuals are called up for militia duty, they will already be armed and familiar with those arms. Thus the individual right furthers the existence of a militia system.
It's guaranteed as a right because they wanted to secure the militia system against attempts to discontinue it. And it's a private right to military arms, because the arms you need to show up with should be suited to the purpose.
Nope. Jefferson Davis formed a militia during the Mexican War and he got the federal government to buy them rifles…and the rifles belonged to Mississippi and not the volunteers in the militia. And in 1861 the CSA didn’t depend on the unorganized militia and their personal arms…they depended on state militia weapons and weapons requisitioned from federal forts and weapons bought on the open market.
You are totally wrong Brett, Scalia expanded Miller, he didn't reverse any of it. Miller said the Feds and States could not ban weapons in common use by the Militia, Scalia expanded that holding to also protect weapons in common use for self defense.
Now how you could say that's standing Miller on its head I don't know. It seems like a modest incremental expansion to consider a question not considered by Miller, the right to keep and bear arms in the home that are commonly used for self defense.
The contraction was taking as given a range of arms in common use that was the product of a couple generations of 2nd amendment non-enforcement. Rather like saying that Jim Crow defined the extent of 14th amendment rights.
Miller examined the right to own a gun from first principles: Did it have military utility. Heller instead referenced ownership patterns that had resulted from the Court's own failures.
No Miller did not examine the question from first principles, the key holding was:
"Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense."
So obviously Scalia expanded on Miller by putting in the common use test for self defense, building on the holding that ordinary military equipment was protected.
But let's face it Miller upheld the National Firearms act and it's restrictions on sawed off shotguns and fully automatic weapons, Scalia's decision left that holding unscathed.
There could be no judicial notice because the defense was neither present nor represented at the USSC. The case was referred back to the lower court to make a determination which never happened for the same reason.
2nd Militia Act of 1792. Congress identified who was subject to militia duty, and told them what arms they were expected to have.
You don't understand what you are talking about. The states (as in the state governments) were not restricted by the U.S. Bill of Rights prior to the 14th Amendment. That was the holding of Barron v. Baltimore (1833).
But every citizen in every state enjoyed those rights against the federal government. The Bill of Rights contain many individual rights, that applied only to the federal government, not the states. Federal law could not restrict freedom of speech, or due process of law, or any of the other rights, anywhere in the United States.
So the fact that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states does not mean it does not include individual rights. The 2nd Amendment can be an individual right. Originally it restricted only the federal government. After the 14th Amendment it was "incorporated" against the states.*
_____________
*Incorporation itself is a sticky subject, but that is the law.
1A overtly states “Congress shall make no law”. The 2A states RKBA shall not be infringed…and yet states very early on in our country’s history infringed it. So that means the 2A was specifically drafted to protect the RKBA for Americans in DC and the federal territories…or in the alternative it never needed to be incorporated and states couldn’t infringe the RKBA upon ratification.
It isn't really your position that once a state has violated a constitutional right it's gone forever, is it?
Text and tradition—that’s Kavanaugh’s standard nitwit.
Right. And what does Kavenaugh say about Text and Tradition?
If the Text is clear, then the inquiry is over, there is nothing more to be gained by examining tradition. See the oral arguments for NYRP-2. He also said scrutiny levels should have no role either, compelling state interest can't allow what the constitution forbids.
Try reading what I wrote again. Your understanding is simply nonsensical. The Bill of Rights applied everywhere in the United States, but only against the federal government. What states did or did not do proves nothing about the meaning of any of the Bill of Rights.
But the 2A was drafted as an individual right…that’s a different construction than the rest of the BoR.
The 1st amendment speaks of "the right of the People" to peaceably assemble.
The 2nd speaks of "the right of the People" to keep and bear arms.
The 4th speaks of "The right of the people" to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects...
The 5th amendment says "No person" shall...
And, of course, the 9th amendment speaks of rights retained "by the People".
The 3rd speaks of "owners", because it was a right specific to people who owned property.
The 6th speaks of "the accused", because you don't have a right to a jury trial if you're not being prosecuted in the first place.
So, yeah, individual rights, every last one of them.
And yet as drafted only the 2A protects an individual So sadz. 🙁
only applied to Americans in DC and federal territories??
14th amendment
It's worse than that. He is confusing where rights apply and against which government rights apply.
I am now in New Jersey, subject to NJ law. I am also in the United States, subject to federal law. That is what it means to have a federal system of government.
Before the 14th Amendment, the Bill of Rights protected me only against the latter, not the former. (Of course, states had their own set of individual rights in their own Constitutions, but that is not the Second Amendment.)
Except according to Scalia the 2A was drafted as an individual right—but everyone seems to agree it didn’t initially apply to individuals in the states. So the 4th and 5th Amendments applied to people in the states because the federal government operates the US Attorneys and US Marshals and federal courts….but those amendments didn’t apply to the state government. So the 2A states that the RKBA shall not be infringed…and yet it was infringed by the states.
Now Scalia asserts that “militia” refers to the unorganized militia and “state” refers to free polity and NOT the several states…and the several states infringed the RKBA and so they weren’t free polities. Whereas the unorganized militia in DC and federal territories were free polities as the federal government could not infringe their RKBA.
Now, if the preface actually means that a trained to arms organized militia is necessary to the security of the free states of the United States…then the 2A becomes a federalism provision that prevents the federal government from doing what took place at Lexington and Concord and then it makes perfect sense that it would only apply to the federal government.
And sure enough in 1861 as the gaunt face of tyranny reared its ugly horse face Jefferson Davis didn’t blow a shofar in order to bring the unorganized militia with their arms out of the woodwork to fight tyranny…he organized an army and used arms from state militia stores and requisitioned from federal forts to arm the military. And just as the states appointed officers to ensure loyalty to the states RE Lee relinquished his commission as a federal officer in order to fight for his state against tyranny.
"but everyone seems to agree it didn’t initially apply to individuals in the states."
No, everyone does NOT agree that it didn't initially apply to individuals in the states.
It applied to individuals, wherever they were, but initially only against the federal government.
What is perhaps confusing you is that the federal government did not originally regulate much conduct taking place on state territory. So that, as an original matter, an individual would only have to be concerned about federal action if on federal land.
But it was still a right against federal action, not a right on federal land.
And yet the states infringed it…such a head scratcher. 😉
Perhaps you're scratching your head because it's hollow, and you're enjoying the echo?
"but everyone seems to agree it didn’t initially apply to individuals in the states."
Everyone named Sebastian Cremmington agrees. Everyone else disagrees. I don't know if you are brain dead, or just stubborn. But you continually ignore the difference between where a right exists, and against whom a right exists.
Most rights in the Constitution do not apply against private actors. On my private land, I can bar you from bearing arms, or practicing a particular religion, or speaking on any topic. That does not make my land a rights-free zone. It just means that these rights do not restrict me as a private party. The US government is still restricted from encroaching on these rights on my land.
Bored, you are wrong about that.
The 2nd always applied to the states despite the fudging from Cruikshank. The reason is because it complements Congress’ Article 1 militia clause power to arm the militia. The first Congress saw the tension between expecting the militia to arm themselves, and not forbidding the states from disarming them. Hence the right of the people to keep and bear arms language.
And note that that reading conforms to the 10th amendment, because the right to arm the militia is a power conferred upon Congress by the constitution.
Omg, no…just no. The states neglected their militias during the AoC but they didn’t proactively disarm them!?! Please, stop smoking crack…you will end up like Hunter Biden.
Holy shit!! The militias were preexisting in 1788…but they were neglected under the AoC. So Constitution was drafted to correct the mistakes of the AoC. So Congress was to set minimum standards for state militias because the Framers didn’t want to have a standing army. Unfortunately the militias never really lived up to their potential but it was a worthy goal. The 2A was “inspired” by the events of Lexington and Concord.
No, under Barron v. Baltimore, the Bill of Rights do not apply to the states:
"The Constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves, for their own government, and not for the government of the individual States. Each State established a constitution for itself, and in that constitution provided such limitations and restrictions on the powers of its particular government as its judgment dictated. The people of the United States framed such a government for the United States as they supposed best adapted to their situation and best calculated to promote their interests. The powers they conferred on this government were to be exercised by itself, and the limitations on power, if expressed in general terms, are naturally, and we think necessarily, applicable to the government created by the instrument. They are limitations of power granted in the instrument itself, not of distinct governments framed by different persons and for different purposes.
If these propositions be correct, the fifth amendment must be understood as restraining the power of the General Government, not as applicable to the States. In their several Constitutions, they have imposed such restrictions on their respective governments, as their own wisdom suggested, such as they deemed most proper for themselves. It is a subject on which they judge exclusively, and with which others interfere no further than they are supposed to have a common interest."
They didn't. The 2A — like the 1A, 3A, 4A, 5A, 6A… well, you get the idea — applied to Americans everywhere.
Not according to Scalia.
Scalia never said it didn't apply, no body had ever asked if it applied.
When someone did ask Alito said of course it applied.
Yes, according to Scalia.
The militia clause.
Not hard to understand.
Should not be erased.
You're right, it's not at all hard to understand. Yet you consistently fail to.
2nd Militia Act of 1792. Congress identified who is in the unorganized militia.
Not hard to understand.
Almost a haiku.
Second Amendment
Dances always past the ken
Of leftist morons
No, it should be interpreted as the Supreme Court did in US v Miller 1939, guaranteeing the the right to keep and bear arms common to the militia.
Scalia expanded that holding to arms in common use for self defense. But the Supreme Court was clear in Miller that it was an individual right, and it applied to the states, over 60 years before Heller was decided.
Gun absolutists are even more doomed and antisocial than speech absolutists and religion absolutists.
Counterproductive, in time, also. The backlash against gun nuttery seems destined to be severe.
Help! Russia is invading! Send us guns we only had 10,000 to distribute!
Backlash? Ha, ha. We've been through this before, kiddo. The truth is, I don't believe that you or any of your fellow leftwing extremists are a threat to my AR-15, or my numerous other firearms, because you're a bunch of d**less cowards.
Frankly, you come across as the kind of wimp who couldn't fight his way out of the proverbial paper bag.
I cordially invite you and other anti-2nd Amendment types to suck my Glock (sic). ????
Big talk from a misfit who has been complying with the preferences of better people -- the liberal-libertarian mainstream, victors in America's culture war -- every day of his downscale life at the fringe.
All-talk clingers are among my favorite culture war casualties.
Open wider, Ogmios. Your betters have even more progress on the way, and you will comply.
Say, you little poof, how will you make me comply when I have both guns and the knowledge of how to use them and you don't? You leftwing limpwrists are pathetic.
Well, if "the historian Joseph Ellis" (who does not have a law degree and lied about serving in Vietnam) declared it a fact of legal history, then it is beyond question.
Not the only thing struck down. Those stun guns have struck down a many a human who never got back up and, in other words, died. If you catch the heart with just the right timing, the high voltage jolt will stop the heart. Permanently. Struck down forever. Sorta like a pacemaker in reverse.
One of the reasons for Taser changing their name to Axon was to evade the stigma of so many deaths. "Excited delirium" didn't cut it any more. They won't admit to it, so I'll admit to it for them.
Police departments typically require officers to be tased as part of qualification to carry them. Some go further - my local department offers open house kinds of events where you can get tased if you want to.
Do you have numbers for how many of those officers are unlucky timing-wise and die in training?
Which is why they call it less lethal.
Having <1% fatalities is a lot less than 50%.
The amount of force necessary to stop a determined, intoxicated, or altered-mental-state attacker is pretty damned close to the amount of force that can kill that attacker. Meting out exactly enough force to accomplish the former but not the latter is not the sort of thing even peace officers can be trained to do consistently, under time pressure, on any working shift, at any time during that shift.
If you're arguing against electronic weapons because they might be lethal, you're arguing against the use of force, period.
Can a state ban free speech outside the home?
Can guns be banned on domestic flights??
If everyone carrying on a plane means no more TSA and no terrorist would ever think of hijacking the plane I don't see why we should ban guns on domestic flights. Back in the day 50's and 60's it wasn't uncommon for people to carry on firearms. Nothing bad happened.
I’m not talking about public policy—I’m talking about the 2A. Does the 2A protect the right to bear arms on domestic flights??
If we were the United States of Freedom then hell yeah it would. Under current doctrine though, the answer would be no. Heller foreclosed any application to sensitive places such as an airport.
Yes. Shall not be infringed.
"Freedom of the press" doesn't apply to TV or the internet, then.
Given the nature of corporate ownership of both mediums this is sort of true.
Yep. Because planes are both privately owned and sensitive places. Nothing about banning carrying onboard offends the constitution.
But banning transportation of unloaded guns in checked baggage might.
SC does not understand the concept that rights are held against particular parties, like the federal government.
What is the public policy justification for banning pepper spray? I really don't even see a rational basis for a ban. It seems like the sole intent is that Big Brother thinks that being a victim that is incapable of resisting to any meaningful degree is preferred. Maybe that is a good argument for some kinds of crimes of violence like muggings (hand over your wallet, it isn't worth your life), but not for other kinds that having lasting physical and mental effects such as rape.
(hand over your wallet, it isn't worth your life)
Shoot the son of a bitch, it is worth his life.
Ah yes, another brave keyboard warrior.
Ahhh internet barbs thrown around by a guy who probably watches his wife have sex with other men.
compare:
How karate was banned in the USSR
Big Brother wants you compliant & docile. It does not want you to think for yourself, to be willing (or, God forbid, able) to stand up for yourself.
Liberals don't think anyone should have a gun. Except when they need someone with a gun, then they demand they be able to call up a man who shows up with one and will use it if necessary. Then liberals want the ability to throw that man with the gun under the bus, try him for trumped up charges, and then throw him under the bus for virtue signaling purposes.
How did no one else get that the statute also prohibits "the so called “Kung-Fu” weapons." Guess they didn't want any of that kung fu fighting, fast as lightning in RI....
I just received the following message from Eugene Volokh
"If you’d like to criticize my position on, say, harassment law or restraining orders or libel or what have you on comment threads for posts that relate to that, be my guest. Do not, however, keep posting repetitive rants, especially when they are off-topic (as on the Russian sanctions post). They will be deleted.
Eugene Volokh"
It's ironic that Eugene Volokh talks about "Free Speech" so publicly and is against the deletion of any data, however malicious, about individuals online, yet HE WANTS to actively censor my posts ABOUT him.
Talk about a double standard.
Your views are dangerous for Americans Eugene, because they legalize cyberstalking and leave victims no recourse for these harms.
I will criticize and expose you all I want until you publicly speak out and apologize for harming victims of cyberstalking and cyberharassment. You are a liar and have double standards, censoring negative but truthful posts ABOUT you while preventing other Americans from exercising this precious right.
Delete all you want. I will keep posting, exercising my precious First Amendment rights.
It's amusing to see diehards in the comments arguing like somehow their discredited legal arguments could still somehow carry the day.
Show at least a little dignity like the judge in this case, and acknowledge you've lost the argument to a court that has the authority to decide the question and make it stick.
What I found interesting about the footnote was that no one really called out the judge at least in the media. Anytime a conservative or Republican appointee uses dicta to point out that a case such as Roe has little basis in actual Constitutional law or argues a Warren case that overreached has no basis, we get the standard finger wagging lecture about "rule of law" and "how the courts work" from the left.
Here though the judge drops a footnote, from an inaccurate or just plain wrong, third party legal commentary (couldn't even be bothered to cite any dissents) and complete crickets....
This is why I won't feel the least bit bad if Roe gets overruled this Spring. The left has made stuff like that fair game. You know darn well the judge did that in hopes that his opinion ends up in a majority opinion (probably casting him as some sort of legal visionary) overruling Heller.
Either that, or polishing his resume for future promotion.
He bent the knee.
A far cry from the 9th circuit en banc in Younger, which claimed that there is no right to keep or bear arms, and that when Hawaii joined the union it's pre US laws override the constitution. They are probably also applying Mexican law in California to justify California's constitutional exceptionalism.