Howard County, Maryland has introduced an emergency bill to remove the current ban on electronic weapons. The bill is in response to a lawsuit challenging the ban as violating the Second Amendment. The last direct action by the United States Supreme Court was on Caetano v. Massachusetts. The Court unanimously held, in the Caetano PER CURIAM decision (pdf), that:

The Court has held that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 582 (2008), and that this “Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States,” McDonald v.Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 750 (2010).

The Caetano case is about electronic weapons. There are a number of States and local governments that have universal bans on electronic weapons. Howard County, Maryland, was one of them. From the baltimoreson.com:

Howard County lawmakers introduced an emergency bill Wednesday that would lift a ban on electronic weapons in response to a federal lawsuit that challenges the county’s longstanding restrictions on the use and sale of Tasers and stun guns.

In the lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Maryland in late January, Leah Baran, a Marriottsville resident, is suing Baltimore City and Baltimore and Howard counties — which have electronic weapons bans in effect — to allow her to carry a stun gun.

The Howard County Council is scheduled to vote on the repeal of the ban on Tuesday, 21 February. The Howard County Police Chief has stated the police department does not enforce the ban.

The Maryland case is the latest in a string of lawsuits Second Amendment supporters have enjoyed using the Caetano decision. Such lawsuits have had success in New Jersey, New Orleans, and the District of Columbia. Another lawsuit is being pursued in New York State. Internet searches have not revealed legal challenges to similar bans in Hawaii and Rhode Island.

©2017 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included. Gun Watch

Recommended For You

14 Responses to States Rolling Back Electronic Weapons Bans

  1. They need to revamp Michigan’s law concerning stun guns. Right now, the only people who can carry them (outside of law enforcement) are CPL holders; they have to take additional “training”; they can only buy them from authorized dealers; and – get this – they can ONLY BUY “TASER” BRAND STUN GUNS! That last proviso is because the Taser brand stunners eject serial-numbered identifying confetti when they are fired, so the cops know that a particulat Taser was fired (not necessarily who fired it, though). Considering the fact that a Taser costs as much as many handguns do, this is ridiculous. I want my options open, and to not be told that if I want a stun guun I can ONLY buy one particular brand. That is as stupid as a state that allows concealed carry saying you can ONLY carry Smith & Wessons, or ONLY carry Colts, or ONLY carry SIGs. I want the option of buying a Taurus, if a S&W is too expensive.

    • In all fairness, are there any other directed energy weapons out there other than taser? I’m not talking about those cheap Chinese made stun guns you see at flea markets, I am talking about real ranged electro pulsed discharged weapons.

        • You can add the Raptor as an underbarrel attachment on your rifle… you know, in case it turns out you didn’t really need the rifle in the first place but you just gotta shoot that person with SOMETHING.

      • Not everyone cares if they are “ranged” or not, for one thing. For another thing, again, not everyone can afford a TASER brand stun gun, just like not everyone can afford a medium to high-end handgun. There needs to be a stun gun alternative legally available in Michigan for those people on a Hi-Point budget.

        • And, there’s also the “Big Brother” aspect: ‘We wanna know if you fired your stun gun or not’. That’s just plain stupid. Just like a gun, a criminal isn’t going to care where they get their stunner (and there HAVE been documented cases of criminals using stun guns, especially for sexual assaults); a law-abiding citizen who uses a stun gun isn’t likely to try to hide the fact that he or she had to use it. So the “traceability” requirement is stupid, un-necessary, and totalitarian, just like the leftist states calling for “ballistic fingerprinting” on every gun sold.

  2. Good. Paving the way for my grand children to carry their energy weapons. I’ll regale them with tales of manly weapons which made noise like thunder and echoed across the landscape, who’s mere presence sent liberals into tears.

  3. This is nice and all, and I’m glad to see *some* progress being made, but are there *any* of them of modest size that can be fired at least twice rapidly?

    I’d hate to be the one approached by three thugs looking to score my smartphone for a few bumps of crank and just having 2 rounds available…

  4. According to that, ALL assault weapons bans, carry restrictions, and the NFA and GCA are unconstitutional (we already know that, but reading just that sentence means the Supreme Court has already recognized them as such).

    • Lets hope trump can changed the supreme court more as only 5-4.
      Then the court is the best option to remove all infrigments as nfa act and may/ shall issue

  5. Electrical weapons are STILL BANNED from Massachusetts residents. Still RESTRICTED FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT ONLY! Carve-outs as usual…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *