Shoot to Stun
This New York Times op-ed piece argues that the recent Heller opinion, recognizing a constitutional right under the Second Amendment for a person to hold a loaded firearm in their house, does not have the broad practical implications for greater firearm use that many people seem to assume. It is the criminal law in each state that controls the use a firearm for defensive force, not the Second Amendment, and those provisions uniformly limit defensive firearm use in dramatic ways. Indeed, as non-lethal weapons become more effective and more available, the use of firearms, which by law constitute lethal force, become increasingly less justifiable under current law. Available for download at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1175283
self-defense, non-lethal weapons, criminal law
New York Times
Robinson, Paul H., "Shoot to Stun" (2008). Faculty Scholarship at Penn Carey Law. 227.
NY Times, op-ed, July 2, 2008