Baltimore, Howard County act on Taser ban
Baltimore officials are considering repealing a law that bans people from owning or using Tasers and stun guns after a federal judge intervened Thursday.
Chief Judge Catherine C. Blake of the U.S. District Court in Maryland signed an order temporarily halting part of a federal lawsuit that challenges bans on the electronic weapons in Baltimore City and Baltimore and Howard counties, pending action by the city.
Six local residents — including Leah Elizabeth Baran of Howard County and Douglas W. Hansen of Baltimore — sued local officials in late January over their right to own and carry the weapons.
Mayor Catherine Pugh said the city and plaintiffs “have agreed to wait up to 90 days to allow for potential legislative action by the City which would remove the need to move forward with the lawsuit.”
Howard County lawmakers lifted a similar ban Tuesday in response to the lawsuit. Both jurisdictions, along with Baltimore County, have had longstanding restrictions on the stun guns, which the plaintiffs argued are necessary for self-defense as an alternative to lethal force.
Their argument is bolstered by a U.S. Supreme Court decision in March 2016 that questioned the constitutionality of stun gun bans and suggested that Second Amendment protections applied to electronic weapons. The decision did not declare stun gun bans wholly unconstitutional; instead, the court rejected the arguments of a Massachusetts court for upholding the ban.
Anne Arundel County — the first county to ban stun guns in the state — lifted its restriction in 2013.
The devices use compressed nitrogen to fire two small probes attached to conducting wires. Once in contact with a person’s body, the device transfers between 50,000 and 300,000 volts of current at 3 amperes — enough power to stop the target’s motor functions and inhibit muscle control without causing injury.
Baran and the other plaintiffs argued that Tasers allow individuals to apprehend an attacker at proximity. George L. Lyon Jr., a lead attorney on the lawsuit, said the case aims to restore local residents’ right to “an effective self-defense tool.”
PREVIOUS ARTICLE
