The Massachusetts’ top court has ruled last week to ban private possession of stun guns – an “electrical weapon”, saying that it does not violate the Second Amendment right to bear arms.

Nevertheless, we note that stun guns deliver a charge of up to 50,000 volts. They are designed to incapacitate a target by causing disabling pain, uncontrolled muscular contractions, and general disruption of the central nervous system…. It is difficult to detect clear signs of use and misuse of stun guns, unlike handguns. Stun guns can deliver repeated or prolonged shocks without leaving marks. …The Legislature rationally could ban their use in the interest of public health, safety, or welfare. Removing from public access devices that can incapacitate, injure, or kill a person by disrupting the central nervous system with minimal detection is a classic legislative basis supporting rationality. It is immaterial that the Legislature has not banned weapons that are more lethal. Mathematical precision by the Legislature is not constitutionally required.

The court, ruling in the case of a Massachusetts woman, Jaimie Caetano, who was arrested outside of a supermarket for possession of a stun gun in 2011, said the stun gun is a “thoroughly modern invention” not in common use at the time the Second Amendment was enacted in 1789. Caetano said that it was necessary to protect herself against an abusive boyfriend and challenged the constitutionality of the ban. The courts ruled that even though handguns used today are not what was common at the time either, that their basic function is the same.

…and that records show that “there is nothing on record to suggest that they are readily adaptable to use in the military. Indeed, the records indicates ‘they are ineffective for…hunting or target shooting.’ Because the stun gun that Caetano possessed is both dangerous per se at common law and unusual, but was not in common use at the time of the enactment of the Second Amendment, we conclude that stun guns fall outside the protection of the Second Amendement.

The court said, “The Legislature rationally could ban [the use of stun guns] in the interest of public health, safety, or welfare.” The court also said that the legislature could reasonably have acted to remove “from public access devices that can incapacitate, injure, or kill a person by disrupting the central nervous system with minimal detection.”

The court noted that the stun gun Caetano had in her possession was a black electronic device with two metal prongs and a switch. When turned 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.

The decision, predicated on “rationality” and the modernity of the electric device is the opposite of rational. If the device is “ineffective for hunting or target shooting”, then why wouldn’t this device be beneficial for a woman to thwart off – let’s say – a rapist? What should she do?

“The defendant [should apply] for a license to carry,” the court said.

Although in 2008, a US Supreme Court decision, known as Heller (PDF) overturned a District of Columbia statute and ruled that a ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment says the people have a “right to keep and bear arms.” This decision has interpreted the amendment to mean that people have a right to possess guns for purposes such as self-defense within the home.

“Barring any cause for disqualification the defendant could have applied for a license to carry a firearm…possession of mace or pepper spray for self-defense no longer requires a license,” the court ruled.

Michael E. Rosman, general counsel for the Center for Individual Rights in Washington, D.C., told the Boston Globe, the public is “permitted with a license to have guns and carry guns. It makes no sense to say you shouldn’t be allowed to have a weapon that you can defend yourself with, but is less dangerous to the attacker.”

The ban on stun guns, he told the Globe, is “perverse” because they are less lethal than other weapons.

The public, he said, is “being pushed into handgun possession by the ban on stun guns.”