Tacoma leans on SCOTUS ruling to roll back decision on stun guns, but not all Washington jurisdictions are following suit…
Facing potential and indefensible litigation over 2nd Amendment rights violations, the city of Tacoma pulled its feet from the waters of infringement and reversed its 2006 decision outlawing stun guns within city limits. After a decade of Tacoma’s infringement, a 2016 Supreme Court decision overturned a Massachusetts woman’s conviction on the grounds that her 2nd Amendment rights to possess a stun gun were violated. Following this decision, on June 27, 2017 Tacoma’s governance repealed its ban on stun gun use, restoring that right to the people.
The Supreme Court smack-down in March 2016, Caetano v. Massachusetts, 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,” emphasizing that this “Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States.” Given that ruling, Tacoma’s legal team recommended a roll-back after realizing it could not justify defending a law that SCOTUS clarified as unconstitutional.
But before arguments were heard by SCOTUS, Tacoma’s ban on stun guns was permitted by other courts’ rulings, engendering a series of legal interpretations pertaining to the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms … and how courts differ on the topic.
The SCOTUS ruling overturned a previous decision in Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Caetano when in March 2015, the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) of Massachusetts weighed the argument over 2nd Amendment rights regarding stun guns. Hearing her case on appeal, the SJC ruled against Jaime Caetano whose 2011 arrest stemmed from illegal possession of a stun gun.
According to Commonwealth Second Amendment’s site Comm2A (“Working to protect and restore civil rights”), the following synopsis chronicles what led to Ms. Caetano’s arrest:
“After being beaten so severely she required hospital treatment, Defendant Jaime Caetano left an abusive relationship with the father of her two children. Caetano, who stands 4’-11” tall and, despite the presence of numerous restraining orders, continued to be harassed by her ex-boyfriend who would continually show up at her workplace. Homeless and in fear for her life, Caetano accepted a ‘stun gun’ from a friend as a means to defend herself.
“In the Fall of 2011, Caetano was arrested and charged for possession of a ‘stun gun,’ in violation of Massachusetts General Law 140, §131J, which imposes a near-total ban on all electric-based weapons in the Commonwealth. Despite presenting the aforementioned facts, Caetano was convicted of the §131J violation after a bench trial. Caetano appealed and the Supreme Judicial Court agreed to hear her case.”
The Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) weighed “whether §131J, which criminalizes the private possession of so-called stun guns, infringes on the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms as defined by the Supreme Court’s District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago decisions; and whether, and how, the Second Amendment protection applies outside one’s home in the case of a homeless person.”
As mentioned previously, Caetano’s appeal went unchanged by the SJC; it upheld her conviction for self-defense use of a stun gun. All’s not fair in love and war, as they say, so Caetano took it further up the judicial rungs until the Supreme Court of the United States agreed to hear the case. Citing her Second Amendment rights, SCOTUS reversed Caetano’s conviction, paving the pathway for Tacoma and other cities like it to be sued for infringement upon citizens’ 2nd Amendment rights. Naturally, after the years on the books, Tacoma reconsidered and repealed its ban of stun guns.
Interestingly, factoring into the SJC’s decision against Caetano was the seemingly narrow-minded view that stun guns are not recognized as a constitutional application since electric weapons were not even considered when the framing fathers enacted the Bill of Rights in 1791. The SJC articulated “…there can be no doubt that a stun gun was not in common use at the time of enactment, and it is not the type of weapon which is eligible for Second Amendment protection.”
So much for evolution and a forward-thinking judiciary!
For the purpose of the Tacoma City Council’s stun gun law, their state statute conveys the following:
Washington State Revised Code § 9A.04.110. defines a stun gun as “an electronic device that projects wired probes attached to the device that emit an electrical charge and that is designed and primarily employed to incapacitate a person or animal.”
Tacoma Municipal Code 8.66.010 defines stun guns as: E. “Electroshock device” means any electric or other conductive energy device such as a TASER, stun gun, or other device designed to deliver an electronic charge, which apparently is capable of producing bodily harm or incapacitation to any degree, whether directly from the device or through a missile or projectile. It does not include any electric livestock prod purchased for and used exclusively in animal husbandry, or any automatic external defibrillator used in emergency medical situations.
And Washington State Revised Code § 9.41.270. prohibits “Weapons apparently capable of producing bodily harm–Unlawful carrying or handling–(1) It shall be unlawful for any person to carry, exhibit, display, or draw any firearm, dagger, sword, knife or other cutting or stabbing instrument, club, or any other weapon apparently capable of producing bodily harm, in a manner, under circumstances, and at a time and place that either manifests an intent to intimidate another or that warrants alarm for the safety of other persons.”
“Subsection (1) of this section shall not apply to or affect the following: (a) Any act committed by a person while in his or her place of abode or fixed place of business; (b) Any person who by virtue of his or her office or public employment is vested by law with a duty to preserve public safety, maintain public order, or to make arrests for offenses, while in the performance of such duty; (c) Any person acting for the purpose of protecting himself or herself against the use of presently threatened unlawful force by another, or for the purpose of protecting another against the use of such unlawful force by a third person.” Exemptions to this statute are law enforcement officers, correctional officers, and military personnel.
Tacoma Municipal Code 8.66.080 Unlawful use of weapons: A. Violations. It is unlawful for a person: 1. To sell, manufacture, purchase, possess, or carry any blackjack, sand-club, slingshot, metal knuckles, switchblade knife, fighting knife, martial arts weapon, ball flail, or electroshock device.
Subsection 5 under the aforementioned Unlawful use of weapons section contains the buried clause: “The City Council of the City of Tacoma hereby declares that it would have adopted this section, and each subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions be declared invalid or unconstitutional.” Gee, how spiffy. Check all the fine print, folks!
Taser, Taser, Taser
Axon Enterprise’s TaserX26 is the non-police version of a conducted electrical weapon (CEW) that is marketed for civilians. Axon’s site lists the legal permissibility to own a TaserX26 in 45 states excluding DC, HI, MA, NY, NJ, and RI. A list of legal requirements by state is available for those considering owning a stun gun. Always verify/study your state laws pertaining to CEWs.
Although Tacoma rescinded its ban on stun guns, other Washington State jurisdictions may or may not go the same route. Airway Heights, Burlington, Cheney, Issaquah, Pacifica, Redmond, Richland, Ruston, Westport, Yakima, Yakima County, and Yelm are local governments with laws prohibiting stun guns, according to Axon’s site.
What’s your take on the Supreme Court decision? Does any of this shock you?
