Stun gun ruling threat; Lobbyist vows to challenge it.

Byline: Craig S. Semon

While a Massachusetts gun lobbyist association disagrees with last week's state Supreme Judicial Court's ruling upholding a state ban on stun guns, some area law enforcement leaders and gun rights supporters are siding with the SJC that owning a stun gun is not a Second Amendment right.

The SJC's ruling came in the case of Commonwealth v. Caetano. Jaime Caetano was arrested in an Ashland supermarket parking lot in 2011 on a charge of having a stun gun. She said it was necessary to protect herself against an abusive boyfriend and challenged the constitutionality of the stun gun ban.

Ms. Caetano had a black electronic device with two metal prongs and a switch. Once the switch was thrown, an electrical current appeared between the prongs, the court said. The court noted that such devices can deliver charges of up to 50,000 volts.

Massachusetts law forbids the private possession of a "portable device or weapon from which an electrical current, impulse, wave or beam may be directed, which current, impulse, wave or beam is designed to incapacitate temporarily, injure or kill'' except by specified public officers or suppliers of such devices, if possession is "necessary to the supply or sale of the device or weapon'' to agencies utilizing it, the SJC ruling states.

"We acknowledge that stun guns may have value for purposes of self-defense, but because they are not protected by the Second Amendment and because a rational basis exists for their prohibition, the lawfulness of their possession and use is a matter for the Legislature,'' the SJC ruling states.

James L. Wallace, executive director of the Gun Owners' Action League of Massachusetts, insists stun guns should be eligible for Second Amendment protection.

"Absolutely,'' Mr. Wallace said. "The Second Amendment is about arms. It's not just about guns. It's basically, whatever reasonable force you can use to defend yourself and somebody else. The Second Amendment could cover pocket knives. It's an arm. It's not necessarily a firearm.''

Mr. Wallace accuses the SJC of being "out of touch'' and refusing to acknowledge the Second Amendment as a civil right, as do 42 states in the country that have no restriction on stun guns.

"This particular court has a long history of being a little bit, shall we say, immature and antiquated when it comes to Second Amendment decisions,'' Mr. Wallace said. "And they kind of followed that with this ruling as well.''

Since it is the belief of...