Stun Gun Case Bolts Forward
Judge Douglas Woodlock of the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts recently asked CIR to file a Motion for Summary Judgment in our case against Massachusetts’s stun gun ban. CIR jumped at the opportunity and filed the Motion and a detailed Memorandum on May 17th, asking the court to declare the ban unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.
Our Memorandum makes it clear that the ban is in blatant violation of the Second Amendment. We argue that electric and other non-lethal weapons are “arms” under the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court has never said that the Constitution only protects traditional firearms. In fact, legal history suggests exactly the opposite. The Second Amendment codifies a preexisting individual right to self-defense and as such it necessarily should extend to all devices that a person could use in self-defense. Additionally, Electric weapons are not “dangerous” or “unusual” as Massachusetts repeatedly claims in its defense of the ban. Our Memorandum provides data showing that electric weapons are far less lethal than traditional firearms and points to the example of forty-six other states that permit law-abiding citizens to own electric weapons for self-defense.
That Judge Woodlock asked for motions on summary judgment suggests the court wants to resolve Martel quickly. The state filed its response on June 7th, and CIR responded with a final reply on June 28th.