And Then There Were None

Previously I talked about a challenge filed in New York City seeking to overturn the city’s ban on electric weapons.
The 2008 Heller decision has paved
the way for several unconstitutional provisions to be struck from the laws we
have on the books, and this was highlighted in the 2016 Caetano remand. In the orders to the lower court, it was made clear
that just because a weapon was not around or imagined at the time of the
founding, it does not mean it’s not a constitutionally protected arm. Rhode
Island was the final holdout state that gripped to their ban on these weapons
like a drowning victim clutches a living.

On March 15, 2022, an order was given in O’Neil v.
Neronha
. The 33-page document chronicles the precedent that the
court was bound to follow. Regardless of random little jabs offered by the
judge in the opinion, this was a big win for the Second Amendment as a whole,
as we’re left with no states that prohibit the possession of stun guns and
tasers. The judge’s acquiescence shouldn’t underwhelm the factual, and as
always, brilliant arguments brought by attorneys Alan Beck and Stephen
Stamboulieh in their takedown of Little Rhody’s freedom limiting law.

The opinion did lean on a couple of tests that
were outlined in the text. From the Miller
v. Bonta
opinion in California, the threshold to meet was quoted in the
opinion

“The correct starting orientation is that no arm may be prohibited.
Suppose a plaintiff challenges the government’s prohibition. In that case, it
is on the government first to prove the banned arm is dangerous and unusual,
and if not that it is not commonly possessed, or not commonly possessed by
law-abiding citizens, or not commonly possessed for lawful purposes or militia
readiness.”

This goes with what was stated in Curiamo
“As the per curiam opinion recognizes, this is a conjunctive test: A weapon may
not be banned unless it is both dangerous and unusual.”

For a weapon to not be covered by some level
of constitutional protection, the device must be both dangerous AND unusual, as
well as not being commonly possessed. Electric arms such as stun guns and
tasers can be considered dangerous,
but are they unusual? No, they’re not. Arguably they’re not dangerous enough to
fit the bill, especially when comparing them to conventional firearms or bladed
weapons. They are also commonly possessed in 49 other states of the Union.

The best description of dangerous and unusual,
and not in common use, that a fellow Second Amendment supporter and I came up
with when in conversation was depleted uranium bullets or perhaps nuclear
weapons. It will take a lot for many who respect this right to find weapons to
be unusual. There’s nothing unusual about a machine gun or short-barreled
shotgun. They’re only not in common use because of governmental overreach. This
is a battle for another day.

District Judge William E. Smith was sure to
put other citations questioning the dangerous and unusual test parameters in
footnotes even though he did clearly embrace the case law we have throughout
the country.

How the “dangerous and unusual” test fits within the common use factor
remains unclear. See Kolbe v. Hogan, 849 F.3d 114, 135–36 (4th Cir. 2017)
(listing several questions raised in light of Heller, including “Is not being
‘in common use at the time’ the same as being ‘dangerous and unusual?”, but
holding that the court need not answer those questions).

[…]

Certainly, this is not to say that such weapons are not at all
dangerous. See Avitabile v. Beach, 368 F. Supp. 3d 404, 419 (N.D.N.Y. 2019)
(noting that “stun guns are not children’s toys, and might be dangerous in the
wrong hands”). “But as Heller and its progeny make clear, state a class of arms
entitled to Second Amendment protection might be dangerous in the wrong hands
(e.g., handguns) does not necessarily justify their blanket ban in all
settings.” Id.

Just prior to the conclusion, while discussing
scrutiny, the order laid down the scepter of control, reasoning why the
infringement on electronic weapon possession did not cut muster. The S
essentially had nothing to bring to the table other than to say, “They’re bad,
and we don’t like them.”

“Therefore, while the Court is mindful that it should “cede some degree
of deference” to the General Assembly about “how best to regulate the
possession and use of the proscribed weapons,” see Worman, 922 F.3d at 41, the
deference is not unlimited. See Maloney, 351 F. Supp. 3d at 239 (holding a ban
of nunchaku unconstitutional under intermediate scrutiny where the record
lacked evidence of nunchaku-related crime and the state “offered virtually no
evidence supporting a public safety rational for a total ban (as opposed to
lesser restrictions) on the possession and use” of the weapon). In the absence
of virtually any evidence to support the State’s claim of its interests, a
complete ban on stun guns cannot survive a Second Amendment challenge. The
total ban of stun guns contained in R.I. Gen. Laws § 11-47-42(a)(1) clearly
lacks the required “substantial” fit between the asserted governmental interest
and the means chosen to advance those interests, and accordingly, violates the
Second Amendment.”

Putting the final nail in the coffin of
electric arms prohibition throughout all the States, the order makes it clear,
“The prohibition against the possession and use of stun guns outlined in
§11-47-42(a) is an unconstitutional restriction of the right to bear arms under
the Second Amendment in light of Heller.”

I reached out to attorney Alan Beck about this
monumental accomplishment. The Beck-Stamboulieh team has been systematically,
nearly single-handedly, worked at tearing down every single statute in the
country that regulates these weapons. Beck had the following commentary to
offer me:

“I am very happy that my clients now have a less than lethal self-defense
option and that the court joined the weight of authority in finding electric
arms cannot be banned.”

A hearty congratulations to Beck, Stamboulieh,
the residents of Rhode Island, and citizens at large on having liberties
returned. Thankfully, we have patriots in this country who are willing to stick
their necks out and fight for what’s right when dismantling every infringement
on the Second Amendment.

Stay safe out there, and think before you do!

John Petrolino is a US Merchant Marine
Officer, writer, author of“Decoding Firearms: An Easy to Read Guide on General Gun
Safety & Use”
and USCCA certified instructor, NRA certified
pistol, rifle, and shotgun instructor living under and working to change New
Jersey’s draconian and unconstitutional gun laws. You can find him on the web
atwww.thepenpatriot.com
on Twitter at@johnpetrolino
on Facebook athttps://www.facebook.com/thepenpatriot/
and on Instagram@jpetrolinoiii

More
articles