Skip to main content

Please consider signing onto this particular White House petition calling on the Obama Administration to have the federal government govern and regulate Tasers and other stun guns in the same manner as firearms and other lethal weapons are regulated, here (screenshot):

150 signatures are needed simply to meet the initial threshold with which to get the petition listed on the White House petition Website.

After that, although the next threshold of 100,000 signatures is quite challenging, it is hoped enough people across the nation will rise to this humongous challenge and bring about a movement by the deadline of September 23rd; this in order for the Administration to review the petition and issue an official response.

In addition, after signing onto the petition, please help spread the word as well.

Together, we can make a difference.

By the way, due to this more than likely being a longterm national effort if need be, another petition to also consider signing onto along these lines as well -- in addition to the above -- is hosted on the MoveOn petition Website, here (screenshot):

Read about this particular petition and effort on vtdigger, here.

Thank you in advance.

Originally posted to norsehorse on Mon Aug 26, 2013 at 09:31 PM PDT.

Also republished by Police Accountability Group.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (4+ / 0-)

    If 'free speech' has virtue, it is derived from one being equally free to ignore such as others are to freely express their opinions. -- 'sources unknown'

    by norsehorse on Mon Aug 26, 2013 at 09:31:56 PM PDT

  •  Self-defense? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nextstep, MGross, andalusi

    A couple of queries:

    1) Does a person have an inherent right to defend themselves and/or their loved ones?

    2) If the answer to the above is "no", please explain why.

    3) If the answer to the above is "yes", what do you suggest as the best tool for the task? Assume such an attacker has at least $5 and can therefore acquire or make a defense against pepper spray sufficient to get within "bust you up you with a blunt object" range.

    Since many areas have an effective ban on firearms (especially in terms of carrying them), regulating stun guns would be a de facto ban on them in these areas. So, if you believe in a person's right to defend themselves and you are barring a tool for that defense, the burden is on you to show there is an equivalent alternative means of defense.

    If your petition is actually meant to rein in the abuse of Tasers by the police, then regulating them like guns is pretty useless, since police by their very definition get to carry guns and would therefore be completely unaffected by regulations regarding the civilian carry of Tasers.

    •  It all depends ... (0+ / 0-)

      on how and what is defined as 'self-defense' and who is doing the defining. Since this is in fact more of a legal question, one needing to be posed to lawyers and courts who can best answer such and I am not a lawyer, nor otherwise qualified to answer these type of legal questions, I will leave it to legal experts to do so. That stated, it would also appear to depend on the law of the land, whether it be local, county or state as well as federal. For example, some jurisdictions might not allow citizens to purchase Tasers or other stun guns, others might not allow one to carry and use it outside one's house and so on. The petition I set up calls for governing and regulating Tasers and other stun guns in the same manner as firearms and other lethal weapons as they are regulated at the federal level. Since there currently appears to not be any actual federal regulation of these type of lethal weapons, there is nothing controlling their use across the nation in a uniform manner, other than what might be the case among certain local municipalities and even then there are huge differences and gaps as well as problems. Elsewhere, there is little if anything meaningful guarding against their misuse and is part of why they are being abused and misused so readily. This is also something which happens to put a load of financial liability on those municipalities. Whereas, firearms and other lethal weapons are usually regulated more carefully in one form and to one degree or another, whether it be at the municipal, state or federal level. Thus, there is plenty of policy, regulations and case law on the books concerning the use of firearms and other lethal weapons across the land. Not so with Tasers and other stun guns. Therefore, if Tasers and other stun guns were governed and regulated at the federal level, current federal regulations and case law regarding firearms and other lethal weapons would apply and then potentially help in reining in the use of these weapons, whether by law enforcement officers or civilians. By the way, this is really about the use of these lethal weapons, whether it be by law enforcement officers or civilians, not merely about who gets to carry and use them. There is a difference. However, as mentioned earlier, it would of course be better to ask legal experts these types of questions.

      If 'free speech' has virtue, it is derived from one being equally free to ignore such as others are to freely express their opinions. -- 'sources unknown'

      by norsehorse on Tue Aug 27, 2013 at 08:28:57 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Point of clarification (0+ / 0-)

        i.e., ... By the way, this is really about the use of these lethal weapons (e.g., when as well as how and so on), whether it be by law enforcement officers or civilians, not merely about who gets to carry and use them. ...

        If 'free speech' has virtue, it is derived from one being equally free to ignore such as others are to freely express their opinions. -- 'sources unknown'

        by norsehorse on Tue Aug 27, 2013 at 08:40:15 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Uh...yeah (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        andalusi
        Since this is in fact more of a legal question, one needing to be posed to lawyers and courts who can best answer such and I am not a lawyer, nor otherwise qualified to answer these type of legal questions, I will leave it to legal experts to do so.
        These are the sort of questions you should answer before proposing legislation, not afterwards.

        Tasers and stun guns are not "lethal weapons" any more than hiking boots are, the difference being that more people are kicked to death each year than die from Taser misuse. And I'm not a Taser apologist, that's just the facts. If you want to do some good on the issue, work to make the police accountable for Taser misuse rather than penalizing everyone else. After all, how many civilians killed someone with a Taser last year? Or, looking at your argument from the other direction, how well has the vast body of existing firearm law (which would then cover Tasers) reined in police misuse of firearms?

        Calling Tasers "lethal weapons" both exaggerates their misuse and diminishes the misuse of firearms. For instance, if I were to say "since according to you, Tasers and guns are both "lethal weapons", then you would be okay with guns being regulated like Tasers are regulated right now?", you would probably answer "No way!".

        And that's the answer in a nutshell. Equivalence goes both ways or it is not equivalence. Afraid I have to rec the "absolutely not" comment on this diary and bid it goodbye.

  •  Absolutely not. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Shamash

    Is there a petition to ignore this one circulating somewhere?

    The last thing we need to do is reduce availability of non-lethal self defense tools.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site