Non firearm weapons permits

[screenwriter6]

A while back I learned that in my state many common self defense items are illegal. This includes tazers, batons, and night sticks.

Has anyone heard of states which allow such items by permit the way fire arms are often regulated?

Personally I find it a little odd that completely lethal weapons are protected as "arms" under the second amendment, but stun based anti personnel items are not.

[Citicop]

There is no such permit in Missouri.

Non-Firearms are either legal (like Pepper Spray or a TASER) or they are illegal, (like brass knuckles or blackjacks).

-Citicop.

[Sgt. Slaughter]

A while back I learned that in my state many common self defense items are illegal. This includes tazers, batons, and night sticks.

Has anyone heard of states which allow such items by permit the way fire arms are often regulated?

Personally I find it a little odd that completely lethal weapons are protected as "arms" under the second amendment, but stun based anti personnel items are not.

It varies state by state. Arizona is fair game for most weapons. The only permit here is for concealed carry.

If you may think back to your history, I don't believe many TASER-style "stun based anti personnel items" were around during the writing of the Bill of Rights. Therefore, they clearly couldn't be listed in the Second Amendment.

[screenwriter6]

If you may think back to your history, I don't believe many TASER-style "stun based anti personnel items" were around during the writing of the Bill of Rights. Therefore, they clearly couldn't be listed in the Second Amendment.

True, but it just says "Arms". They had cudgels those are more or less stun based.

Besides, Franklin was pretty close. I bet he had the foresight :p

[Sgt. Slaughter]

"Cudgels" and all lesser manner of bludgeoning devices were not what King George was attempting to confiscate from the colonists and do not fall into the definition of "arms". It was cannons and firearms (pistols as well as muskets, hence the word "arms".) The very first skirmish of our war for independence occurred when British troops attempted to seize cannons on our shoreline. Please note the word "attempted". ;) That, in addition to the seizure of cannons, arms and gunpowder from Europe is what had the Founding Fathers scribe the Second Amendment.

[screenwriter6]

Then by that reasoning shouldn't every private citizen should have the right to own a fully automatic m16 and tear gas? Those are the modern day equivalent of muskets and pistols.

Arms by definition can mean any weapon.

In today's world citizens typically use firearms to protect themselves from criminals, not monarchs. If a citizen feels more comfortable carrying something meant to stun instead of kill shouldn't that be their right?

[Sgt. Slaughter]

Then by that reasoning shouldn't every private citizen should have the right to own a fully automatic m16 and tear gas? Those are the modern day equivalent of muskets and pistols.

I do have that right. It takes a little bit longer, but I can still purchase Class III weapons if I have enough money to afford it. You too, can own a full-auto MP5 if you're not precluded from owning any other firearm. I've never tried purchasing tear gas, but I can go into any store and get OC, CS or CN gas. Even get it in a keychain sized package if I want.

Arms by definition can mean any weapon.

Not when the Second Amendment was written. You think they referred to a child's slingshot in the same light as a musket? Get real...

In today's world citizens typically use firearms to protect themselves from criminals, not monarchs.

That's what they're typically used for. However, their ultimate use is to protect against a tyrannical government by being able to form militias. You don't think the feds would pass out weapons and ammo to fight against them, do you?

If a citizen feels more comfortable carrying something meant to stun instead of kill shouldn't that be their right?

That doesn't fit the premise of the Second Amendment. Should they be able to? I think so. Unfortunately, what I think isn't codified in the U.S. Constitution or the constitutions and statutes of 50 different states.

[Sgt. Slaughter]

Not when the Second Amendment was written. You think they referred to a child's slingshot in the same light as a musket? Get real...

I hate to quote myself, but I had to. I re-read this and got to thinking about Paul Revere riding along yelling, "To arms! To arms! The British are coming" only to see his displeasure as people came out of their house with a bunch of slingshots.



Yup. DEFINITELY not the same...

[Sgt. Slaughter]

There's an old case out of Arkansas: Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557 (1878) in which the Supreme Court states, in part, the following:

But to prohibit the citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm, except upon his own premises or when on a journey traveling through the country with baggage, or when acting as or in aid of an officer, is an unwarranted restriction upon his constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege.

[dadyswat]

Then by that reasoning shouldn't every private citizen should have the right to own a fully automatic m16 and tear gas? Those are the modern day equivalent of muskets and pistols.

Arms by definition can mean any weapon.

In today's world citizens typically use firearms to protect themselves from criminals, not monarchs. If a citizen feels more comfortable carrying something meant to stun instead of kill shouldn't that be their right?

That is an interesting concept. The 1934 court ruling referred to what was applicable as a military weapon and it may well be true that we should be able to have them without the Feds blessing BUT DON"T COUNT ON IT.

[screenwriter6]

If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege.:

I really feel that same token should apply to other types of arms.

[Sgt. Slaughter]

You really can't grasp the concept presented here, can you?

[screenwriter6]

No I get your point. I understand what the law is and the reasoning behind its application.

I made my point, perhaps redundantly. It seems the answer to my question, is no, they don't issue permits for such items.

I still wish they did. Maybe I should look for organizations in my state in favor of changing these laws.

[Sgt. Slaughter]

You can look all you like. I am of the opinion that you will be wasting your time as no one will want to get a Constitutional Amendment to allow for the carrying of anything you want to.

People can't agree on the Second Amendment as it's been written for over 200 years. You think you're going to be able to persuade people to ADD another protected category of weapons into the Constitution?

Now, in your state (IIRC, that's NY) you MAY have a chance. But, don't expect anything to happen quickly, if at all. People are more worried about having jobs, paying bills and fighting through this economy. Adding TASERs and whatnot to your states' list of permissible self-defense carry items are probably waaaaaaay down at the bottom of "important things" in the grand scheme of your state issues.

Of course, if it IS NY state, you probably have zero chances of getting that through.

[screenwriter6]

I did mean state government. You're right its probably not a big issue, but hey, some politicians pander to the small organizations.