Judge Dismisses Stun Gun Charges Against Bay City Man

Back in November a story came to light that a Bay City man was facing charges over the fact that he had carried a stun gun with him for protection while on night duty at a Bay City party store.

Court records indicated that he faced the prospect of up to four years in prison after police were tipped off and confiscated his self defense device. However, the 41-year-old in question believed at the time, and still does, that the charge violates his Second Amendment right to bear arms.

Fast-forward five months and a local Michigan judge has dismissed the weapons charges stating that Michigan’s law preventing the possession of stun guns is unconstitutional. As a result, this complete turnaround of events could see a state Court of Appeals reviewing the issue at hand.

It could also mean that those living in Michigan will be able to better protect themselves with the assistance from self defense devices that so many others have come to rely on.

According to the judge presiding over the matter, the ban is a violation of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which states that citizens have the right to bear and keep arms.

Because of this finding a decision will now be reviewed to determine whether or not Michigan’s law is in fact legal.

A change to the way Michigan sees arms could mean that residents will now be able to turn their attention to a device that is becoming increasingly popular in many U.S. states.

While there are many states that have come to enjoy the benefits of owning self defense tools such as stun guns, there are still many others that are not. Different states have different rules which means that in many the possession of a stunning device is prohibited; but the ownership of a gun is not.

Guns are ultimately a lethal weapon to own, whereas a stun gun is not. This then begs the question: why aren’t non-lethal weapons allowed on a person for added protection?

Now that the Michigan judge has dismissed the charges against the 41-year-old man this could be the push needed for other states to reconsider their laws when it comes to providing law-abiding citizens with the protective measures that they need and want.