Federal suit aims to zap stun gun ban
Bay State residents cite right to bear arms
The Bay State’s stun gun law is under attack in federal court, as three residents fight for their constitutional right to carry the electric weapons that are legal in 45 states but still banned here.
“We think that these laws are unconstitutional,” said Michael Rosman, general counsel for the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Individual Rights, which brought the suit yesterday. “If someone can own a gun, why can’t they own something that won’t kill someone?”
The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Boston, argues that Christopher Martel, Donna Major and Madeleine Bates — all Massachusetts residents — want to buy stun guns for various reasons but are barred from doing so.
“(Donna) Major has a moral aversion to taking human life and cannot contemplate the circumstances under which she would use a firearm even in selfdefense,” the suit states. “If Massachusetts law permitted her to carry a stun gun, she would do so for purposes of self-protection while traveling between home and work.”
Rosman said a U.S. Supreme Court decision last March showed the law was vulnerable. In that decision, the high court overturned a ruling by the state Supreme Judicial Court that found the Second Amendment does not apply to stun guns.
The Supreme Court decision stopped short of invalidating the statute, but in a concurring opinion Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito said the law — as a whole — should be tossed.
“While less popular than handguns, stun guns are widely owned and accepted as a legitimate means of self-defense across the country,” Alito wrote. “Massachusetts’ categorical ban of such weapons therefore violates the Second Amendment.”
Jaime Caetano, the woman at the center of the case, was later found not guilty by Judge David Cunis because “the United States Supreme Court issued an opinion relating to the constitutional viability of the statute as applied in certain circumstances.”
Rosman seized on Alito’s language and said the separate opinion “suggests that this is not an easy win for the Commonwealth, and that there are good solid arguments to be made to challenge the propriety of the statute.”
Attorney General Maura Healey’s office, which is responsible for defending the statute and is listed in the suit, declined to comment.
The lawsuit is asking a federal court judge to invalidate the state law because it violates the Second and 14th Amendments. It also seeks to allow the purchase and sale of stun guns.
“Because Tasers, stun guns, and other electrical weapons are ‘arms,’ their possession by law-abiding adult citizens is protected by the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms,” the suit states.
Meanwhile, a state judge is considering a similar case in which a Bay State is constitutional is possible,” Assistant District Attorney David Wittenberg wrote.
Coyne has not made a decision in the case and is expected to rule by April. the Supreme Court’s decision did not eliminate the state law.
“Indeed, a holding that stun guns fall outside the protection of the Second Amendment, or, that the statute in whole or in part Michael J. Coyne to dismiss the charges, arguing that the statute is unconstitutional, according to court records.
Suffolk prosecutors are defending the statute and the charges, arguing that woman was arrested for possessing a stun gun last year. Brittany C. Rourke was arraigned on July 21, 2016, in the Boston Municipal Court for possessing a stun gun, and now her attorney has asked Judge