Criminal Charges Violate Second Amendment Rights with Self Defense Device

A Bay City man facing a felony charge for carrying a stun gun device claims he only had the device on him in order to protect himself as he worked late shifts at a Bay City party store.

The 41-year-old man is facing charges of possession or sale of a TASER device which could see a person receiving up to four years in prison. Officers were alerted to the 41-year-old carrying the stunning device after Bay City officers received a tip off that the man in question was wearing the device on his belt.

When officers arrived at the party store they confiscated the stunning device from the man; however they failed to take a coworkers handgun that was on his hip even though officers saw the traditional firearm.

The 41-year-old claims that in fact he was carrying a stun gun and not a TASER device, but went on to explain that he wasn’t aware that it was illegal to possess the tools in Michigan.

Whereas a TASER device can work up to 35 feet away and fires two prongs at a target, a stun gun does not share these features. In fact the 41-year-old explained that the device he had is a completely different voltage from that of a TASER device and that instead of it hurting someone it acts more of a deterrent to leave someone alone.

Unfortunately, Michigan is one of the seven states that forbids the possession or sale of a weapon or portable device where an electrical current impulse, beam or wave can be directed that aims to temporarily incapacitate a target.

The six other states include Hawaii, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island and Wisconsin. Additionally, they are banned in Washington, D.C, Puerto Rico, American Samoa as well as the U.S. Virgin Islands.

According to the spokesman for BestStunGun.com which reports sales of over 50,000 stun guns and TASER devices in recent years, there are countless inquiries being submitted from the prohibited areas.

As a result of the self defense company not being able to sell the units to these customers they feel helpless, and don’t know what else they can do in order to protect themselves from potential harm.

Being a much safer and non-lethal alternative to a firearm, the number of customers turning to these devices is on the increase. Of course, when it comes to the differences between a stun gun and a TASER device – which is trademarked from TASER International – the most obvious difference is that the former requires direct contact, whereas the latter can be employed at greater distances from the target.

The 41-year-old’s attorney has filed a motion seeking dismissal of the charge on the grounds that it imposes on his client’s Second Amendment right to carry arms. The attorney claims the charge is unconstitutional, as the right to bear arms is not restricted to weapons or firearms when the Second Amendment was adopted in 1791.