The Editorial Board

USA TODAY

Jaime Caetano started carrying a stun gun after multiple restraining orders against her violent ex-boyfriend failed to keep him away. One night outside her Massachusetts workplace, Caetano was confronted by the man, who towered over her by about a foot, outweighed her by nearly 100 pounds and began screaming that she should be home with their kids.

She displayed the stun gun, told him she didn’t want to use it but warned, “If you don’t leave me alone, I’m gonna have to.” The threat worked. The man left her alone.

But not long after, the stun gun that had protected her landed her in trouble with the law. Because of a Massachusetts ban on possessing a stun gun, she was arrested, tried and convicted after police discovered the gun in her purse.

Her case went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which in March found that the state had gone too far in banning non-lethal stun guns. The court stopped short of striking down the law, but it unanimously rejected the Massachusetts court’s ruling that stun guns are not protected by the Second Amendment and sent the case back for rehearing. Instead, the case was settled and the law remains on the books.

Several states and cities that ban stun guns, including Hawaii, New York, Rhode Island, Baltimore, New Orleans, Philadelphia and Tacoma, Wash., would do well to take a hint from the Supreme Court. Not only are the devices protected by the Second Amendment, but there is a public safety case for them.

2nd Amendment does not apply: Opposing view

For people seeking a way to defend themselves, stun guns are a reasonable, preferable and safer alternative to firearms. States scrambling to find ways to sensibly regulate firearms would be better off eliminating bans that waste police, prosecutorial and judicial resources arresting, trying and jailing people who are seeking a non-lethal way to defend themselves. Such bans also encourage those same people to buy a lethal firearm instead.

A few jurisdictions are now making more thoughtful decisions.

Last week, in another case involving illegal possession of a stun gun, the New Jersey Attorney General refused to defend the ban, pointing to the Supreme Court’s Massachusetts March ruling and a 2008 landmark decision, which established the right to keep firearms in one’s home for self-defense. The landmark ruling said that “the Second Amendment extends … to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.”

A ban on stun guns in Washington, D.C., which was recently challenged in court by three residents, also appears headed for extinction. The legal case is on hold while City Council members consider amendments to bring the law in compliance with the Constitution.

Critics are correct that stun guns can also be dangerous, particularly if used improperly. That can be addressed through sensible regulation, perhaps requiring training. And while firearms in homes cause accidental deaths, on average twice a day, and are used in 56 suicides a day, stun guns do not present these problems.

Some of the arguments used to defend stun gun bans can be dangerous, too. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court argued that as stun guns were not widely available at the time the Second Amendment was adopted, there is no right to possess them. Imagine if such thinking were applied to the First Amendment. Mormons and Seventh Day Adventists would have no religious freedom, and federal and state governments would be perfectly free to censor Twitter and Facebook.

Many of the laws against stun guns date to the 1970s and '80s. But today, they are legal in more than 40 states for good reason. Others should follow, and unlike Washington, D.C., and New Jersey, they shouldn't wait for a lawsuit.

Think for a moment about Jaime Caetano’s encounter with her ex-boyfriend. If she had no way to defend herself, it might have ended in tragedy for her. Or a different tragedy, with her ex injured or dead, if instead of a stun gun, she had brandished a firearm for protection.

USA TODAY's editorial opinions are decided by its Editorial Board, separate from the news staff. Most editorials are coupled with an opposing view — a unique USA TODAY feature.

To read more editorials, go to the Opinion front page or sign up for the daily Opinion email newsletter. To respond to this editorial, submit a comment to letters@usatoday.com.