View source for Electroshock weapon

{{Short description|Incapacitating weapon}}
[[Image:Taser-x26.jpg|thumb|A [[taser]], with cartridge removed, making an [[electric arc]] between its two [[electrode]]s]]
An '''electroshock weapon''' is an incapacitating [[weapon]]. It delivers an [[electric shock]] aimed at temporarily disrupting [[muscle]] functions and/or inflicting [[pain]], usually without causing significant [[injury]].

Many types of these devices exist. Stun guns, batons (or prods), [[cattle prods]], [[shock collars]], and belts administer an electric shock by direct contact, whereas [[Taser]]s fire projectiles that administer the shock through thin flexible wires. Long-range electroshock projectiles, which can be fired from ordinary shotguns and do not need the wires, have also been developed.

Though the two terms are often used interchangeably, stun guns are actually direct contact weapons that work mainly through pain compliance by affecting the sensory nervous system.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Faircloth |first1=Ulrich |title=Stun Gun Myths |url=https://www.srselfdefense.com/blog/stun-gun-myths/ |website=www.srselfdefense.com |publisher=Stun & Run Self Defense |access-date=2018-12-07 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190329225017/https://www.srselfdefense.com/blog/stun-gun-myths/ |archive-date=2019-03-29 |url-status=live }}</ref> It can also cause some muscular disruption, but that generally requires 3–5 seconds of direct contact.<ref name=":2">{{cite web |last1=Carson |first1=Andrea |title=What Is the Difference Between a Stun Gun & Taser? |url=https://sciencing.com/difference-between-stun-gun-taser-5588945.html |website=sciencing.com |date=13 February 2014 |publisher=Sciencing |access-date=2018-12-07 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181209124234/https://sciencing.com/difference-between-stun-gun-taser-5588945.html |archive-date=2018-12-09 |url-status=live }}</ref> In comparison, a [[Taser]] is a long range weapon that fires barbed darts and incapacitates the target by disrupting voluntary muscular control through the motor nervous system.<ref name=":2" /><ref>{{cite web |title=Taser vs Stun Gun |url=https://blog.taser.com/taser-vs-stungun |website=blog.taser.com |publisher=TASER Self-Defense |access-date=2018-12-07 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190406113728/https://blog.taser.com/taser-vs-stungun |archive-date=2019-04-06 |url-status=live }}</ref> However, some models of Taser blur this distinction as they are capable of delivering a "[[Taser#Drive Stun capability|Drive Stun]]", a [[pain compliance]] technique involving placing the weapon in direct contact with the subject's body and discharging a shock without firing the probes.<ref name="MMRMA">{{cite journal |author=Law Enforcement Advisory Committee |title=Less Lethal Weapons: Model Policy and Procedure for Public Safety Officers |publisher=Michigan Municipal Risk Management Authority |date=Summer 2005 |url=http://www.taser.com/research/Science/Documents/Michigna%20Risk%20Managment%20TASER.pdf |access-date=May 12, 2009 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080820074158/http://www.taser.com/research/Science/Documents/Michigna%20Risk%20Managment%20TASER.pdf |archive-date=August 20, 2008 }}</ref>

== History ==
{{Expand section|reason=There must be more to history of these devices than a 1935 glove (which I added) and the taser in 1969|date=August 2015}}
In 1935, Ciril Diaz of Cuba designed an electroshock glove for use by the police. The glove delivered 1,500 volts of electricity (only 3% of the modern tasers voltage)<ref name="mod-mechx">{{cite journal |title=Electric Glove for Police Stuns Victims With 1,500 Volts |journal=[[Modern Mechanix]] |issue=September 1935 |url=http://blog.modernmechanix.com/electric-glove-for-police-stuns-victims-with-1500-volts/ |access-date=August 2, 2015 |issn=0025-6587 |via=blog.modernmechanix.com |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150905194043/http://blog.modernmechanix.com/electric-glove-for-police-stuns-victims-with-1500-volts/ |archive-date=September 5, 2015 |url-status=dead }}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last1=Mele |first1=Christopher |last2=Diaz |first2=Johnny |date=2021-04-14 |title=Tasers: Are These Police Tools Effective and Are They Dangerous? |language=en-US |work=The New York Times |url=https://www.nytimes.com/article/police-tasers.html |access-date=2022-09-24 |issn=0362-4331}}</ref>

[[Jack Cover]], a [[NASA]] researcher, began developing the [[Taser]] in 1969.<ref>{{cite news |first=Jerry |last=Langton |title=The dark lure of "pain compliance" |url=https://www.thestar.com/news/2007/12/01/the_dark_lure_of_pain_compliance.html |publisher=Toronto Star |date=December 1, 2007 |access-date=December 1, 2007 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130625054811/http://www.thestar.com/news/2007/12/01/the_dark_lure_of_pain_compliance.html |archive-date=June 25, 2013 |url-status=live }}</ref> By 1974, he had completed the device, which he named after his childhood hero [[Tom Swift]] ([[Tom Swift and His Electric Rifle|"Thomas A. Swift's electric rifle"]]).<ref>{{cite book |last=Purpura |first=Philip P. |title=Criminal justice : an introduction |year=1996 |publisher=Butterworth-Heinemann |location=Boston |isbn=978-0-7506-9630-2 |page=187 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=P8-oSPHlHXoC |access-date=2016-07-28 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170424023338/https://books.google.com/books?id=P8-oSPHlHXoC |archive-date=2017-04-24 |url-status=live }}</ref> The Taser Public Defender product used [[smokeless powder|gunpowder]] as its propellant, which led the [[Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms]] to classify it as a [[firearm]] in 1976.<ref name="stunning_revelations">{{cite news | first=Silja J. A. | last=Talvi | title=Stunning Revelations | url=http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/2894/ | publisher=In These Times | date=November 13, 2006 | access-date=December 17, 2006 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061205193011/http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/2894/ | archive-date=December 5, 2006 | url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="CPSC_236">{{cite web|title=Jurisdiction over the Taser Public Defender (#236)|publisher=[[U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission]]|date=March 22, 1976|url=http://www.cpsc.gov/LIBRARY/FOIA/advisory/236.pdf|access-date=July 23, 2008|url-status=dead
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080910070837/http://www.cpsc.gov/LIBRARY/FOIA/advisory/236.pdf|archive-date=September 10, 2008}}</ref>
Cover's patent was adapted by Nova Technologies in 1983 for the Nova XR-5000, their first non-projectile hand-held style stun gun.<ref name="NovaXR5000">{{cite journal |last=Edelson |first=Edward |year=1985 |title=Stun Guns How dangerous? |journal=Popular Science |volume=227 |issue=4 |pages=92–93 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=oQAAAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA92 |access-date=3 February 2013 |issn=0161-7370 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130528150411/http://books.google.com/books?id=oQAAAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA92 |archive-date=28 May 2013 |url-status=live }}</ref> The XR-5000 design was widely copied as the source for the compact handheld stun gun used today.

==Principle of operation==
Electroshock weapon technology uses a temporary high-voltage, low-[[electric current|current]] electrical discharge to override the body's muscle-triggering mechanisms. Commonly referred to as a stun gun, electroshock weapons are a relative of [[cattle prod]]s, which have been around for over 100 years and are the precursor of stun guns.  The recipient is immobilized via two metal probes connected via wires to the electroshock device. The recipient feels [[pain]], and can be momentarily paralyzed while an electric current is being applied. Essential to the operation of electroshock, stun guns and cattle prods is sufficient current to allow the weapon to stun. Without current these weapons cannot stun and the degree to which the weapon is capable of stunning depends on its proper use of current. It is reported that applying electroshock devices to more sensitive parts of the body is even more painful.<ref>[[Darius Rejali|Darius M. Rejali]], associate professor of Political Science, Reed College, [http://academic.reed.edu/poli_sci/faculty/rejali/rejali/articles/electric.html Technological Invention and Diffusion of Torture Equipment] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100305072316/http://academic.reed.edu/poli_sci/faculty/rejali/rejali/articles/electric.html |date=2010-03-05 }} Portland, OR, August, 1998.</ref> The maximum effective areas for stun gun usage are upper shoulder, below the rib cage, and the upper hip.{{Citation needed|date=November 2010}} High voltages are used, but because most devices use a less-lethal current, death does not usually occur from a single shock.{{Citation needed|date=November 2010}} The resulting "shock" is caused by muscles twitching uncontrollably, appearing as muscle spasms.

The internal circuits of most electroshock weapons are fairly simple, based on either an [[oscillator]], [[resonance|resonant]] circuit (a [[power inverter]]), and step-up [[transformer]] or a [[diode]]-[[capacitor]] [[voltage multiplier]] to achieve an alternating high-voltage discharge or a continuous direct-current discharge. It may be powered by one or more [[battery (electricity)|batteries]] depending on manufacturer and model. The amount of current generated depends on what stunning capabilities are desired, but without proper current calculations, the cause and effect of high voltage is muted. Output voltage is claimed to be in the range of 100 V up to 6 kV; current intensity output is claimed to be in the range of 100 to 500 mA; individual impulse duration is claimed to be in the range of 10 to 100 μs (microseconds); frequency of impulse is claimed to be in the range of 2 to 40 [[Hertz|Hz]]; electrical charge delivered is claimed to be in the range of 15 to 500 μC (micro[[coulomb]]s); energy delivered is claimed to be in the range of 0.9 to 10 J.<ref>{{Citation
 |last1=Smith
 |first1=Patrick W.
 |first2=Magne H.
 |last2=Nerheim
 |title=United States Patent: 7602597 - Systems and methods for immobilization using charge delivery
 |access-date=2014-08-19
 |date=2009-10-13
 |url=http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=6636412.PN.&OS=PN/6636412&RS=PN/6636412
|archive-url=https://archive.today/20140819211449/http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=6636412.PN.&OS=PN/6636412&RS=PN/6636412
|url-status=dead
|archive-date=2014-08-19
}}</ref>
<ref>
{{Citation
 |last=Smith
 |first=Patrick W.
 |title=United States Patent: 6636412 - Hand-held stun gun for incapacitating a human target
 |access-date=2014-08-19
 |date=2003-10-21
 |url=http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=7602597.PN.&OS=PN/7602597&RS=PN/7602597
|archive-url=https://archive.today/20140819211446/http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=7602597.PN.&OS=PN/7602597&RS=PN/7602597
|url-status=dead
|archive-date=2014-08-19
}}</ref> The output ''current'' upon contact with the target will depend on various factors such as target's resistance, skin type, moisture, bodily salinity, clothing, the electroshock weapon's internal circuitry, discharge waveform, and battery conditions.<ref>[http://www.fool.com/investing/small-cap/2004/11/01/talking-about-taser.aspx Q&A with TASER International co-founder Tom Smith] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071014054932/http://www.fool.com/investing/small-cap/2004/11/01/talking-about-taser.aspx |date=2007-10-14 }} Nov. 1, 2004</ref><ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/11/14/children.tasers/index.html Police review policy after Tasers used on kids] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060217030114/http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/11/14/children.tasers/index.html |date=2006-02-17 }} November 15, 2004</ref>

The M-26 Taser models produce a peak current of 18 [[ampere]]s  in pulses that last for around 10 microseconds.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20070901121231/http://www.taser.com/documents/carletonuniv_000.pdf Carleton University Technical Report on Taser Stun Gun]</ref>

Manufacturers' instructions and manuals shipped with the products state that a half-second shock duration will cause intense pain and muscle contractions, startling most people greatly. Two to three seconds will often cause the recipient to become dazed and drop to the ground, and over three seconds will usually completely disorient and drop the recipient for at least several seconds. Taser International warns law enforcement agencies that "prolonged or continuous exposure(s) to the TASER device's electrical charge" may lead to medical risks such as cumulative exhaustion and breathing impairment.<ref>[http://www.taser.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/Controlled%20Documents/Warnings/LG-INST-LEWARN-001%20REV%20L%20Law%20Enforcement%20Warnings.pdf Product Warnings – Law Enforcement] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070926025505/http://www.taser.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/Controlled%20Documents/Warnings/LG-INST-LEWARN-001%20REV%20L%20Law%20Enforcement%20Warnings.pdf |date=2007-09-26 }}</ref>

Because there was no automatic stop on older model Taser devices, many officers have used it repeatedly or for a prolonged period of time, thus potentially contributing to suspects' injuries or death.<ref name=aaconcerns>[http://web.amnesty.org/library/pdf/AMR510302006ENGLISH/$File/AMR5103006.pdf Amnesty International's continuing concerns about taser use (in the USA)] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070926025503/http://web.amnesty.org/library/pdf/AMR510302006ENGLISH/$File/AMR5103006.pdf |date=2007-09-26 }} 2006</ref><ref>[https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/amr51/139/2004/en/ Excessive and lethal force? Amnesty International's concerns about deaths and ill-treatment involving police use of tasers] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181122062116/https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/amr51/139/2004/en/ |date=2018-11-22 }}  30 November 2004</ref> The current X26 model automatically stops five seconds after the trigger is depressed and then the trigger must be depressed again to send another shock. The trigger can be held down continuously for a longer shock or the device can be switched off before the full five seconds have elapsed. The devices have no protections against multiple police officers giving multiple shocks, cumulatively exceeding the recommended maximum levels.<ref name=policeforum2011>{{Cite book| url=http://www.policeforum.org/assets/docs/Free_Online_Documents/Use_of_Force/electronic%20control%20weapon%20guidelines%202011.pdf| title=2011 ELECTRONIC CONTROL WEAPON GUIDELINES| date=March 2011| isbn=978-1-935676-05-8| publisher=Police Executive Research Forum/U.S. Department of Justice - Office of Community Oriented Policing Services| access-date=2016-05-21| archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150905070632/http://www.policeforum.org/assets/docs/Free_Online_Documents/Use_of_Force/electronic%20control%20weapon%20guidelines%202011.pdf| archive-date=2015-09-05| url-status=live}}</ref>

===Countermeasures===
There is a fabric that purports to protect the wearer from Taser devices or other electroshock weapons.
{{Further|Thor Shield}}

==Commercially available varieties==

{{multiple image
| header = Compact stun guns
| image1 = Electric lipstic img 2872.jpg
| caption1 = A concealable weapon shaped and sized like a lipstick tube
| width1 = 200
| image2 = Taser_cell_phone.jpg
| caption2 = [[Mobile phone]]-style stun gun mimicking a [[Nokia N73]]
| width2 = 150
}}

===Compact stun guns===

The compact handheld stun guns are about the size of a TV remote or calculator, and they must touch the subject when used. The original XR-5000 design in 1983 had the electrodes spread farther apart to make the noisy electric arc between the electrodes as a more visible warning. Some such devices are available disguised as other objects, such as umbrellas, [[mobile phone]]s or pens.

===Electric shock prods===
[[Image:Electric cattle prod.jpg|thumb|Electric cattle prod from the 1950s]]
The larger [[Baton (law enforcement)|baton-style]] prods are similar in basic design to an electric [[cattle prod]]. It has a metal end split into two parts electrically insulated from each other, or two thin projecting metal [[electrodes]] about {{convert|2.5|cm|in|sigfig=1}} apart, at an end of a shaft containing the batteries and mechanism. At the other end of the shaft are a handle and a switch. Both electrodes must touch the subject. In some types the sides of the baton can be electrified to stop the subject from grasping the baton above the electrodes.

Some models are built into long [[flashlight]]s also designed to administer an electric shock with its lit end's metal surround (which is split into halves insulated from each other).

===Stun belts===
{{Main|Stun belt}}
A stun belt is a belt that is fastened around the subject's waist, leg, or arm that carries a battery and control pack, and contains features to stop the subject from unfastening or removing it. A remote-control signal is sent to tell the control pack to give the subject an electric shock. Some models are activated by the subject's movement.

The United States uses these devices to control prisoners. One type is the [[REACT belt]]. Some stun belts can restrain the subject's hands and have a strap going under his groin to stop him from rotating the belt around his waist to reach its battery and control pack and trying to deactivate it. Stun belts are not generally available to the public.

===Stun shields===
Stun shields are [[shield]]s with electrodes embedded into the face, originally marketed for animal control, that have been adopted for riot control.

{{multiple image
| header = Tasers
| image1 = Raysun X-1 img 2865.jpg
| caption1 = Raysun X-1, a multi-purpose handheld weapon that fires two stun probes (for high-voltage shocks), rubber bullets, pepper, and paintballs. Without the probes it works as a stun gun.
| image2 = Taser Stoper C-2 img 2864.jpg
| caption2 = Taser Stoper C2, with cartridge removed. A self-defense weapon.
}}

===Taser===
{{main|Taser}}

A [[taser]] is a handheld weapon that fires two small dart-like [[electrodes]] which remain connected to the main unit by conductors.  It delivers [[electric current]] to disrupt voluntary control of muscles resulting in pain and broad "[[neuromuscular junction|neuromuscular]] incapacitation".<ref>[http://www.taser.com/research/technology/Pages/NeuromuscularIncapacitation.aspx " Neuromuscular Incapacitation (NMI)"], Taser International, published March 12, 2007. Retrieved May 19, 2007 {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080413110006/http://www.taser.com/research/technology/Pages/NeuromuscularIncapacitation.aspx |date=April 13, 2008 }}</ref><ref>International Association of Chiefs of Police, ''[http://www.theiacp.org/research/CuttingEdge/EMDT9Steps.pdf Electro Muscular Disruption Technology: A Nine-Step Strategy for Effective Deployment] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131210211811/http://www.theiacp.org/research/CuttingEdge/EMDT9Steps.pdf |date=2013-12-10 }}'', 2005</ref>

===Wireless long-range electric shock weapon===

[[Taser International]] has developed a long-range wireless electro-shock projectile called XREP (eXtended Range Electro-Muscular Projectile), which can be fired from any [[12-gauge]] [[shotgun]]. It contains a small high-voltage battery. Its range is currently {{convert|30|m|ft}}, but the [[United States Department of Defense|U.S. Department of Defense]], which funded development for the technology, expected delivery of a {{convert|90|m|ft}} range projectile of this type from the company in 2007.<ref>[http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/02-14-2006/0004281420&EDATE TASER International Successfully Demonstrates Wireless TASER(R) eXtended Range Electro-muscular Projectile to Military Officials] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120920183430/http://www2.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=%2Fwww%2Fstory%2F02-14-2006%2F0004281420&EDATE |date=2012-09-20 }}, PR News. Retrieved December 23, 2007.</ref>

An XREP projectile was controversially used by British police during the [[2010 Northumbria Police manhunt]].<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10615302 |title=Tasers fired at gunman Raoul Moat 'not approved'|date= 13 July 2010 | work=BBC News}}</ref> It subsequently transpired that the XREP had never been officially approved for use in the United Kingdom and the weapon system was provided unrequested to the police at the scene directly by the civilian company which distributes Taser International's products in the UK. The company's license to provide Taser systems was afterwards revoked by the [[Home Secretary]] [[Theresa May]].<ref>{{Cite news|title=Taser guns chief "kills himself" after Raol Moat shooting row|date=2 October 2010|first=Padraic|last=Flanagan|url=https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/203025/Taser-guns-chief-kills-himself-after-Raol-Moat-shooting-row|access-date=26 June 2024|work=[[Daily Express]]}}</ref>

==Prototype designs==
Due to increased interest in developing less-lethal weapons, mainly from the U.S. Military, a number of new types of electroshock weapon are being researched. They are designed to provide a "ranged" less-lethal weapon.

The [[electrolaser]] is a prototype weapon that uses a laser to create a conducting ionized channel through the air.

A shockround is a [[piezo-electric]] projectile that generates and releases electric charge on impact.

===Weapons that administer electric shock through a stream of fluid===
{{Further|Water cannon#Electrified water jet}}

Prototype electroshock guns exist that replace the solid wire with a stream of conductive liquid (e.g., metallic solution, salt water), which offers an increase in the range of a Taser CEW (or better) and the possibility of multiple shots. According to the proponents of this technology, difficulties associated with this experimental design include:{{Citation needed|date=July 2013}}
*"Non-continuous" discharge onto subject: liquid stream needs over {{convert|9|m}} and over 5-second discharge
*"Pooling" of conductive liquid at base of subject, making apprehension of subject difficult by observing officers
*Need to carry a large tank of the liquid used, and a propellant canister, like a "water gun", to administer consecutive bursts of liquid over distances.

Another design, announced by [[Rheinmetall W&M]] as a prototype in 2003, uses an [[aerosol]] as the conductive medium. The manufacturers called it a "Plasma Taser"; however, this is only a marketing name, and the weapon does not use [[plasma (physics)|plasma]]. According to the proponents of this technology, problems associated with this design include:{{Citation needed|date=July 2013}}
*Poor electrical conductivity
*Range of concept design is minimal (a gas cannot be propelled greater than {{convert|3|m}} effectively)
*The "gassing effect": all subjects in enclosed spaces are subjected to the same effects

===The S5: A repeating cyclical stun pistol===

Since 2001, Russian developer Oleg Nemtyshkin has sought to create a repeating stun pistol, after the Axon Taser CEW. This weapon, the first of its kind, uses tensioned, uninsulated wire and is capable of cycling multiple shots with the pull of a trigger.<ref>{{Cite magazine |url=https://www.wired.co.uk/article/russian-man-aims-to-reinvent-taser-technology |title=Russian man aims to reinvent "Taser" technology {{pipe}} WIRED UK |magazine=Wired UK |access-date=2019-03-04 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190306043337/https://www.wired.co.uk/article/russian-man-aims-to-reinvent-taser-technology |archive-date=2019-03-06 |url-status=live }}</ref> A video of the S5 pistol firing at targets was uploaded on [[YouTube]].<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vi9IuP_JEBs |title=Рекламный фильм PDG-S5 - YouTube |website=[[YouTube]] |date=14 December 2012 |access-date=2019-03-04 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150228204829/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vi9IuP_JEBs |archive-date=2015-02-28 |url-status=live }}</ref>

==Controversies==
{{See also|Taser safety issues}}

Because of the use of electricity and the claim of the weapon being non-lethal, controversy has sprouted over particular incidents involving the weapon and the use of the weapon in general. In essence, controversy has been centered on the justification of the use of the weapon in certain instances, and, in some cases, health issues that are claimed to be due to the use of the weapon.

Tests conducted by the Cleveland Clinic found that Taser CEWs did not interfere with pacemakers and implantable defibrillators.<ref>[http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/937442/cleveland_clinic_study_demonstrates_taser_x26_does_not_affect_shortterm/index.html?source=r_health Cleveland Clinic Study Demonstrates TASER X26 Does Not Affect Short-Term Function of Implantable Pacemakers and Defibrillators] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070927192946/http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/937442/cleveland_clinic_study_demonstrates_taser_x26_does_not_affect_shortterm/index.html?source=r_health |date=2007-09-27 }} May 16, 2007</ref>  A study conducted by emergency medicine physicians at the University of California, San Diego, US showed no lasting effects of the Taser device on healthy test subjects.<ref>[https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070516071544.htm Results from testing the TASER on human subjects, shows that there are no short-term effects] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180801190123/https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070516071544.htm |date=2018-08-01 }} May 20, 2007</ref> However, Taser International no longer claims the devices are "non-lethal", instead saying they "are more effective and safer than other use-of-force options".<ref>[https://www.theguardian.com/crime/article/0,2763,1583867,00.html Police stun-gun may be lethal, firm admits] October 3, 2005</ref>

Currently{{when|date=June 2024}}, Taser devices are programmed to be activated in automatic five second bursts, and the operator can stop the energy charge by engaging the safety switch. The charge can also be prolonged beyond five seconds if the trigger is held down continuously. The operator can also inflict repeated shock cycles with each pull of the trigger as long as both barbs remain attached to the subject. The only technical limit to the number or length of the electrical cycles is the life of the battery, which can be ten minutes or more.

Concerns about the use of conducted electrical weapons have arisen from cases that include the death of the Polish immigrant [[Robert Dziekański Taser incident|Robert Dziekanski]]<ref name="cbc.ca">{{cite news |title=Supervising officer ordered Taser use on Dziekanski |url=https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/supervising-officer-ordered-taser-use-on-dziekanski-1.805273 |work=CBC News |date=March 23, 2009 |access-date=March 15, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190117165416/https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/supervising-officer-ordered-taser-use-on-dziekanski-1.805273 |archive-date=January 17, 2019 |url-status=live }}</ref> at the airport in Vancouver, Canada where he died after the RCMP officer, in spite of his training, repeatedly stunned him with a Taser. The report by forensic pathologist Charles Lee, of Vancouver General Hospital, listed the principal cause of death as "sudden death during restraint", with a contributory factor of "chronic alcoholism".<ref name="cbc.ca"/>

A similar incident occurred in Sydney, Australia, to [[Death of Beto Laudisio|Roberto Laudisio Curti]], a 21-year-old tourist from Brazil.{{when|date=January 2021}} He died after repeated exposure to a Taser device even after being physically apprehended (by the weight of several police officers lying on top of him compressing his chest and making it hard to breathe. He was [[pepper spray]]ed at the same time). The Coroner was scathing of the "thuggish" behavior of the police. The repeated use of several Taser devices was considered excessive and unnecessary.

A study for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, indicated that the threshold of energy needed to induce deadly ventricular fibrillation decreased dramatically with each successive burst of pulses;<ref>[http://www.cbc.ca/news/pdf/taser-analysis-v1.5.pdf Analysis of the Quality and Safety of the Taser X26 devices tested for Radio-Canada / Canadian Broadcasting Corporation by National Technical Systems, Test Report 41196-08.SRC] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130913164711/http://www.cbc.ca/news/pdf/taser-analysis-v1.5.pdf |date=2013-09-13 }} December 2, 2008</ref> however, one pulse may provide enough energy to induce deadly ventricular fibrillation in some cases. The threshold for women may be less.<ref>[http://www.highvoltageconnection.com/articles/ElectricShockQuestions.htm The Electric Shock Questions - Effects and Symptoms] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090426202815/http://www.highvoltageconnection.com/articles/ElectricShockQuestions.htm |date=2009-04-26 }} 2005</ref>

Although the Taser CEW<ref>[http://www.taser.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/Downloads/MK-INST-X26E-001%20REV%20B%20X26E%20Manual.pdf TASER  X26E Operating Manual] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090530170841/http://www.taser.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/Downloads/MK-INST-X26E-001%20REV%20B%20X26E%20Manual.pdf |date=2009-05-30 }}
</ref> is a programmable device, the controlling software does not limit the number of the bursts of pulses and the time between bursts while the trigger is held down continuously, or the number of times the shock cycles can be repeated.

===Legal issues===
{{See also|Electroshock weapon#Legality}}
Electroshock weapons have been made illegal in Germany by supplement 2 [[Gun politics in Germany|WaffG]]<ref>[http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/waffg_2002/anlage_2_80.html ''WaffG Anlage&nbsp;2, siehe 1.3.6'']{{dead link|date=September 2017 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}</ref> if they do not carry an official seal of approval demonstrating they do not constitute a health risk. As of July, 2011, no such seal has been issued to any device on the market. According to § 40 Abs. 4 WaffG,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/waffg_2002/__40.html|title=WaffG - Einzelnorm|access-date=2011-07-30|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120117102315/http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/waffg_2002/__40.html|archive-date=2012-01-17|url-status=live}}</ref> the German [[Federal Criminal Police Office (Germany)|federal police]] may approve of exceptions. Such a special approval for purchase, ownership and carrying was in effect until 31 December 2010.<ref>''Bundesanzeiger Nr.&nbsp;236 vom 18. Dezember 2007, S.&nbsp;8289''</ref> As of 1 January 2011, only devices carrying the [[Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt|PTB]]'s seal of approval are legal.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.bka.de/profil/faq/waffenrecht/kennzeichnungspflicht_elektroschocker.html|archive-url=https://archive.today/20120802171605/http://www.bka.de/profil/faq/waffenrecht/kennzeichnungspflicht_elektroschocker.html|url-status=dead|archive-date=2 August 2012|title=BKA Startseite|date=2 August 2012}}</ref> Previous owners may keep their devices, but cannot carry or sell them.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20110928025429/http://www.bka.de/profil/faq/waffenrecht/av_e-schocker_altbesitz.pdf bka.de]</ref> Electroshock weapons effective over a distance, like Taser CEWs, have been completely outlawed in Germany since 1 April 2008.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20071010210848/http://www.bka.de/profil/faq/waffenrecht/faq-waffenrecht.pdf ''FAQ zum Waffenrecht beim BKA'']</ref>

In the United Kingdom the possession and purchase of any weapon of whatever description designed or adapted for the discharge of any noxious liquid, gas or other thing is prohibited.  This includes electroshock weapons.<ref>{{Cite web |others=Expert Participation |title=Firearms Act 1968 |url=https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/27/part/I/crossheading/prohibition-of-certain-weapons-and-control-of-arms-traffic |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250120074631/https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/27/part/I/crossheading/prohibition-of-certain-weapons-and-control-of-arms-traffic |archive-date=2025-01-20 |access-date=2025-07-17 |website=www.legislation.gov.uk |language=en}}</ref>

===Torture===
The [[United Nations]] Committee against Torture reports that the use of Taser devices can be a form of torture, due to the acute pain they cause, and warns against the possibility of death in some cases.
<ref>[http://www.unog.ch/80256EDD006B9C2E/(httpNewsByYear_en)/D3DD9DE87B278A87C125739C0054A81C?OpenDocument Committee against Torture Concludes Thirty-Ninth Session]  {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080528221236/http://www.unog.ch/80256EDD006B9C2E/%28httpNewsByYear_en%29/D3DD9DE87B278A87C125739C0054A81C?OpenDocument |date=May 28, 2008 }}, press release, ''United Nations Office at Geneva'', November 23, 2007. Accessed 26 November 2007</ref> The use of stun belts has been condemned by [[Amnesty International]] as [[torture]], not only for the physical pain the devices cause, but also for their heightened abuse potential, due to their perceived "harmlessness" in terms of causing initial injuries, like ordinary police batons do. Amnesty International has reported several alleged cases of excessive electroshock gun use that possibly amount to torture.<ref>[http://web.amnesty.org/report2003/usa-summary-eng USA - Amnesty International] 2003 {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060803141959/http://web.amnesty.org/report2003/usa-summary-eng |date=August 3, 2006 }}</ref> They have also raised extensive concerns about the use of other electro-shock devices by American police and in American prisons, as they can be (and according to [[Amnesty International]], sometimes are) used to inflict cruel pain on individuals.<ref>[http://web.amnesty.org/library/pdf/AMR510302006ENGLISH/$File/AMR5103006.pdf Amnesty International's continuing concerns about taser use] 2006  {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061117093412/http://web.amnesty.org/library/pdf/AMR510302006ENGLISH/%24File/AMR5103006.pdf |date=November 17, 2006 }}</ref>

Taser CEWs may also not leave the telltale markings that a conventional [[beating up|beating]] might. The [[American Civil Liberties Union]] has also raised concerns about their use, as has the British human rights organization Resist Cardiac Arrest.

== Legality ==

=== Argentina ===
In 2010, one court ruled against the use of five imported Taser devices by the [[Buenos Aires Metropolitan Police]], to comply with a claim from the Human Rights Observatorium, that states that Taser CEWs are considered an instrument of torture by NGOs and the [[United Nations Convention against Torture#Committee against Torture|Committee against Torture]] of the UN.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.lanacion.com.ar/nota.asp?nota_id=1238999 |title=Tras la polémica por las armas eléctricas, una jueza porteña prohibió que la ciudad las utilice |access-date=11 May 2015 |date=2010-03-02 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100605171027/http://www.lanacion.com.ar/nota.asp?nota_id=1238999 |archive-date=5 June 2010 |url-status=live }}</ref>

=== Australia ===
Possession, ownership and use of a stun gun (including Taser CEWs) by civilians is considerably restricted, if not illegal in all States and Territories. The importation into Australia is restricted with permits being required.

Stun gun use in Australian law enforcement is as follows:

*[[Australian Federal Police]] and [[Australian Capital Territory]]: used only by officers attached to the [[Specialist Response Group]], qualified general duties (patrol) Sergeants within [[ACT Policing]] and Aviation portfolios, and qualified members of Specialist Support Teams in regional offices.
*[[New South Wales]]: Used by general duties (patrol), supervisors/duty officers and specialist officers attached to the [[State Protection Group|Tactical Operations Unit]] and [[Public Order and Riot Squad]].
*[[Northern Territory]]: Used by both general duties (patrol) and the [[Territory Response Group]].
*[[Queensland]]: Used by both general duties (patrol) and [[Special Emergency Response Team (Queensland)|Special Emergency Response Team]].
*[[South Australia]]: Used by all front line Police, STAR Group and Country Members in limited capacity.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/11/17/2744874.htm |title=Tasers rollout for SA police |work=ABC News |access-date=11 May 2015 |date=2009-11-17 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100123194240/http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/11/17/2744874.htm |archive-date=23 January 2010 |url-status=dead }}</ref>
*[[Tasmania]]: Used only by the [[Tasmania Police Special Operations Group|Special Operations Group]]
*[[Victoria (Australia)|Victoria]]: Used by the [[Critical Incident Response Team]] and [[Victoria Police Special Operations Group|Special Operations Group]]. A year long trial at Bendigo and Morwell stations is also underway by general duties police.<ref name="News.com.au_1225886036824">{{cite news |url=http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/country-police-equipped-with-tasers-from-sunday-in-trial-run/story-e6frf7jo-1225886036824 |title=Country police equipped with Tasers from Sunday in trial run |author=Hosking, Wes |date=June 30, 2010 |work=[[Herald Sun]] |access-date=November 17, 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110615061248/http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/country-police-equipped-with-tasers-from-sunday-in-trial-run/story-e6frf7jo-1225886036824 |archive-date=June 15, 2011 |url-status=live }}</ref>
*[[Western Australia]]: Used by both general duties (patrol) and the [[Western Australia Police#Tactical Response Group|Tactical Response Group]].

=== Austria ===
Austria allows police to use stun guns, including Taser CEWs. After using a Tasert CEW, police must immediately call for an ambulance. The victim must be medically checked directly at the place of the shooting, and only a medically trained person may remove the darts. From 2006 to 2012, Austrian police used Taser CEWs 133 times—127 against humans and six against dogs. About 1,000 police officers were permitted in 2012 to carry and use a Taser CEW.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.bmi.gv.at/cms/BMI_OeffentlicheSicherheit/2012/09_10/files/Taser.pdf |title=Taser als Dienstwaffe |author=Gerhard Brenner |date=September 10, 2012 |access-date=January 6, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160611020939/http://www.bmi.gv.at/cms/BMI_OeffentlicheSicherheit/2012/09_10/files/Taser.pdf |archive-date=June 11, 2016 |url-status=live }}</ref>

=== Brazil ===
Use of the Taser device is legal for the police in Brazil. Its use is widespread mainly in the [[Guardas Municipais]] (Municipal Guards), who receive professional training in the use of electro-conductive pistols. Taser devices are also used by [[military police]] and specialized forces. There are laws allowing their use by [[private security companies]], but such use is unusual because of the expense of maintaining a Taser CEW compared with a gun.

=== Canada ===
==== Stun guns ====
Civilian ownership of electroshock weapons is limited by the ''[[Criminal Code (Canada)|Criminal Code]]''. Stun guns are generally classed as "prohibited weapons", making them illegal for civilian ownership. However, stun batons with a length of at least {{convert|48|cm}} are legal to own (but not carry).<ref>{{Cite canlaw |type=reg |regtitle=Regulations Prescribing Certain Firearms and Other Weapons, Components and Parts of Weapons, Accessories, Cartridge Magazines, Ammunition and Projectiles as Prohibited or Restricted |regnumber=SOR/98-462, Part 3, s. 6 |link=https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/sor-98-462/page-2.html}}</ref> In any case, carrying any type of weapon (including electroshock weapons) in public is generally prohibited.<ref>{{Cite canlaw  |short title=Criminal Code |wikilink=Criminal Code (Canada) |abbr=R.S.C. |year=1985 |chapter=C-46 |link=https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46 |linkloc=Government of Canada}}</ref>

==== Conducted energy weapons (Tasers) ====
According to previous interpretation of the ''[[Firearms Act (Canada)|Firearms Act]]'', Taser CEWs were considered "prohibited weapons" and could be used only by members of law-enforcement agencies after they were imported into the country under a special permit. The possession of restricted weapons must be licensed by the [[Royal Canadian Mounted Police]] (RCMP) [[Canadian Firearms Program]] unless exempted by law.<ref name=Giroday2007>{{cite news |last1=Giroday |first1=Gabrielle |title=Police investigate after Taser loaned to doughnut worker |url=http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/breakingnews/story/4177462p-4766412c.html |work=Winnipeg Free Press |date=24 May 2007 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080526154327/http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/breakingnews/story/4177462p-4766412c.html |archive-date=26 May 2008}}</ref> A 2008 review of the ''[[Firearms Act (Canada)|Firearms Act]]'' found that the act classifies "the TASER Public Defender and any variant or modified version of it" as "prohibited firearms". However, Canadian police forces typically treat TASER devices as "prohibited weapons", inconsistent with the restrictions on firearms.<ref>{{cite news |last=MacCharles |first=Tonda |title=Taser use could put police under fire |work=[[Toronto Star]] |date=June 28, 2008 |url=https://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/451010 |access-date=July 16, 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080712094153/http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/451010 |archive-date=July 12, 2008 |url-status=live }}</ref>

The direct source for this information comes from an independent report produced by Compliance Strategy Group<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.compliancestrategygroup.com/ |title=Compliance Strategy Group |publisher=Compliance Strategy Group |access-date=October 14, 2009 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110207164949/http://compliancestrategygroup.com/ |archive-date=February 7, 2011 |url-status=usurped }}</ref> for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. The report is called An Independent Review of the Adoption and Use of Conducted Energy Weapons by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.<ref>[https://torontoist.com/2014/07/former-supreme-court-justice-recommends-giving-toronto-police-officers-tasers-and-body-cameras/ Kiedrowski Report]</ref> In the report that is available through access to information, the authors argued that the CEW was, for several years after its adoption by the RCMP, erroneously characterized as a prohibited "weapon" under the ''[[Criminal Code (Canada)|Criminal Code]]'', as opposed to a prohibited "firearm". This misunderstanding was subsequently incorporated into the RCMP's operational policies and procedures as well as those of other police services in Canada.

While the most recent RCMP operational manual, completed in 2007, correctly refers to the CEW as a prohibited firearm, a number of consequences of this error in classification remain to be dealt with, by both the RCMP and other Canadian police services.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/ccaps/cew/kiedrowski_report_e.htm |title=An Independent Review of the Adoption and Use of Conducted Energy Weapons by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police |publisher=Rcmp-grc.gc.ca |date=September 12, 2008 |access-date=December 26, 2008}}{{Dead link|date=February 2010}}</ref> Consequently, it could be argued the police in Canada may not have had the proper authority under their provincial policing Acts and Regulation to use the CEW in the first place. The point of unauthorized use by the police was also raised by Dirk Ryneveld, British Columbia's Police Complaint Commissioner at the Braidwood inquiry on June 25, 2008. Taser device safety and issues have been extensively rehearsed and investigated after the [[Robert Dziekański Taser incident|Robert Dziekański Taser CEW incident]] at [[Vancouver International Airport]].<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.braidwoodinquiry.ca/transcripts.php |title=Braidwood Inquiry: Transcripts |publisher=Braidwoodinquiry.ca |access-date=December 26, 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090112115327/http://www.braidwoodinquiry.ca/transcripts.php |archive-date=January 12, 2009 |url-status=live }}</ref>

===China===
Under the Law of the People's Republic of China on the Control of Firearms and Public Security Punishment Law, stun guns and tasers are prohibited for civilian ownership in China without an application for a state licence. A weapons permit is required to purchase and own a stun gun or taser.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://flk.npc.gov.cn/detail2.html?MmM5MDlmZGQ2NzhiZjE3OTAxNjc4YmY3OGUwMTA3OGY|title=中华人民共和国枪支管理法|date=Apr 24, 2015|lang=zh}}</ref>

=== Czech Republic ===
{{See also|Gun laws in the Czech Republic}}

Electroshock weapons that require direct contact are not regulated by Czech law. They may be purchased, owned and carried for personal protection without any limitations.

Taser CEWs are considered class C-I firearms under Czech law, i.e. freely available over the counter, however the owner must be older than 18, have full legal capacity, place of residence in the Czech Republic, clean criminal record, full mental capacity and must register the taser with police.<ref name= "zbrojnice-novela-2021">{{cite web
 | last = Gawron
 | first = Tomáš
 | title = Přehledně: Jaké změny přináší novela zákona o zbraních [What changes are coming with the Firearms Act Amendment]
 | work = zbrojnice.com
 | date = 22 December 2020
 | url = https://zbrojnice.com/2020/12/22/prehledne-jake-zmeny-prinasi-novela-zakona-o-zbranich/
 | access-date = 22 December 2020
 | language = cs}}
</ref>

=== Finland ===
In Finland possession of a Taser CEW is legal only for police officers. Police have been using Taser CEWs since 2005. Nowadays there is one in almost every patrol car.<ref>http://yle.fi/uutiset/etalamautin_yleistyy_poliisin_voimankaytossa/6236432 {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160918014657/http://yle.fi/uutiset/etalamautin_yleistyy_poliisin_voimankaytossa/6236432 |date=2016-09-18 }} {{in lang|fi}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://ohjelmat.yle.fi/poliisitv/raportit/suomalaisen_poliisin_uusin_ase |title=Etusivu |access-date=2014-08-21 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140824035730/http://ohjelmat.yle.fi/poliisitv/raportit/suomalaisen_poliisin_uusin_ase |archive-date=2014-08-24 |language=fi}}</ref>

=== France ===
Taser devices are used by the [[Police Nationale|French National Police]] and [[Gendarmerie]]. In September 2008, they were made available to [[Police Municipale|local police]] by a government decree,<ref name="AFP">{{cite web |agency=Agence France-Presse |title=Les policiers municipaux bientôt autorisés à utiliser le Taser |language=fr |url=http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gk8MFzfIIAzKw00QuFZMuRulgCxg |access-date=September 14, 2008 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080912152451/http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gk8MFzfIIAzKw00QuFZMuRulgCxg |archive-date=September 12, 2008 }}</ref> but in September 2009, the [[Council of State (France)|Council of State]] reversed the decision judging that the specificities of the weapon required a stricter regulation and control.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://tempsreel.nouvelobs.com/depeches/societe/20090902.FAP1359/le_conseil_detat_annule_le_decret_autorisant_la_police_.html |title=le Conseil d'Etat annule le décret autorisant la police municipale à utiliser le taser |publisher=[[Le Nouvel Observateur]] |date=September 2, 2009 |access-date=September 2, 2009}}</ref>
However, since the murder of a policewoman on duty, the Taser CEW has been in use again by local police forces since 2010.

=== Germany ===
The purchase, possession, and carrying of Taser devices in Germany has been prohibited since April 1, 2008 (gun control law: ''Anlage 2, Abschnitt 1, Nr. 1.3.6. WaffG''). However Taser devices are in use by police SWAT teams, ''[[Spezialeinsatzkommando]]'' (SEK) and others, in 13 out of 16 German states.

=== Greece ===
[[Greek police]] use Taser CEWs. Greek Police special forces used a Taser CEW to end the hijacking of a Turkish Airlines A310 by a Turkish citizen at [[Athens International Airport]] in March 2003.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.prnewswire.co.uk/cgi/news/release?id=100343 |title=TASER International, Inc. commends Greek Police Special Forces on use of Advanced Taser M26 to arrest Turkish Airlines Flight 160 hijacker |publisher=TASER International |access-date=June 9, 2007 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110608092455/http://www.prnewswire.co.uk/cgi/news/release?id=100343 |archive-date=June 8, 2011 |url-status=live }}</ref>

=== Hong Kong ===
Under Hong Kong laws, Chapter 238 ''Firearms and Ammunition Ordinance'', "Any portable device which is designed or adapted to stun or disable a person by means of an electric shock applied either with or without direct contact with that person" is considered an "arm" and therefore, the importation, possession and exportation of Taser devices requires a license from the [[Hong Kong Police Force]]. They are otherwise illegal, and violation carries penalties up to a $100,000 fine and 14 years in jail.

=== Iceland ===
Use of Taser devices is generally prohibited in [[Iceland]].

=== Ireland ===
Specialist units of Ireland's national police force ([[Garda Síochána]]) use the X26 model; [[Special Detective Unit]], [[Garda Emergency Response Unit|Emergency Response Unit]] and [[Garda Armed Support Unit|Armed Support Unit]]s. Issuing Taser CEWs to all members of the force (who are generally unarmed) was under consideration as of 2013.<ref>{{cite news |last=Cusack |first=Jim |title=Gardai may be issued with stun guns as assaults rise |url=http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/gardai-may-be-issued-with-stun-guns-as-assaults-rise-29259854.html |access-date=7 May 2014 |newspaper=Irish Independent |date=12 May 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140508044329/http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/gardai-may-be-issued-with-stun-guns-as-assaults-rise-29259854.html |archive-date=8 May 2014 |url-status=live }}</ref> Use of Taser CEWs in Ireland by private individuals is prohibited.

=== Israel ===

The [[Israeli police]] have approved using Taser devices. As of 16 February 2009, the first Taser CEWs became available to police units.<ref name="Maariv">{{cite web |publisher=Maariv |title=המשטרה מציגה: שוטרים מחשמלים |url=http://www.nrg.co.il/online/1/ART1/854/166.html |access-date=2018-01-06 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170927052544/http://www.nrg.co.il/online/1/ART1/854/166.html |archive-date=2017-09-27 |url-status=live }}</ref>

'''Israeli Defense Force first usage'''

Taser devices were first used by the Israeli Defense Force by the former special counter-terror unit [[Military Police Corps (Israel)#Post-1983 era and the intifadas|Force 100]] in 2004. The unit was disbanded in 2006. Taser CEWs are expected to re-enter operational use by the Israeli Defense Forces in the near future.<ref name="IDF">{{cite web|publisher=IDF |title=Taser Electric Shock Gun to Be Used in IDF |url=http://dover.idf.il/IDF/English/News/Tech/09/08/0401.htm |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121111150255/http://dover.idf.il/IDF/English/News/Tech/09/08/0401.htm |archive-date=2012-11-11 }}</ref>

As of August 18, 2013, the use of Taser devices by Israeli police was temporarily suspended by Police Chief Yohanan Danino; after such instruments were used repeatedly and excessively by police against a person who allegedly was unarmed and who was not resisting a warranted arrest. But two weeks later the Taser CEW was unsuspended.{{Citation needed|date=December 2016}}

===Japan===
Under the [[Firearm and Sword Possession Control Law]], import, carrying, purchase of conducted energy weapons is prohibited in Japan. The legality of stun guns is unclear.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://elaws.e-gov.go.jp/document?lawid=333AC0000000006|title=銃砲刀剣類所持等取締法|access-date=Jan 19, 2023|language=ja}}</ref>

=== Kenya ===
Under Kenya's Firearms Act, a Taser device is considered a firearm, as per section 2 (a) (ii) of the Act. The section offers one of the descriptions for a firearm as "a lethal barrelled weapon of any description from which any shot, bullet or other missile can be discharged or which can be adapted for the discharge of any shot, bullet or other missile and includes&nbsp;... an electrical charge which when it strikes any person or animal is of sufficient strength to stun and temporarily disable the person or animal struck (such weapon being commonly known as a 'stun gun' or 'electronic paralyser' ".<ref>{{cite web |last1=Kenya Law Reports |title=The Firearms Act |url=https://www.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihlnat.nsf/a24d1cf3344e99934125673e00508142/ea060dacb4bc3d8bc1257b4a004ef6f6/$FILE/Firearms%20Act%20.pdf |website=International Committee of the Red Cros |publisher=National Council for Law Reporting |access-date=31 August 2015 |pages=5 }}</ref>

=== Malaysia ===
Royal Malaysia Police are set to become the second in Southeast Asia police force after [[Singapore Police Force]] to use the less-lethal Taser X26 CEW.  The Taser X26 CEW that Malaysian police bought comes with a holster and uses a non-rechargeable lithium battery able to deliver 195 cartridge shots. Policemen on rounds are issued four cartridges. The Taser devices were issued to policemen in Petaling Jaya, Dang Wangi in Kuala Lumpur and Johor Bahru.<ref>{{cite news |title=''Taser X26 stun guns in use soon'' |url=http://www.nst.com.my/Current_News/NST/Friday/National/2592478/Article/index_html |publisher=[[New Straits Times]] |date=June 26, 2009 |access-date=July 8, 2009 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090626201435/http://www.nst.com.my/Current_News/NST/Friday/National/2592478/Article/index_html |archive-date=June 26, 2009}}</ref>

=== New Zealand ===

A large-scale and generally well received trial by the [[New Zealand Police]] saw Taser devices presented almost 800 times and fired over 100 times, but firing was "ineffective" about a third of the time.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/5297218/The-shocking-truth-about-Tasers |title=The shocking truth about Tasers |website=stuff.co.nz |year=2011 |quote=Figures obtained by [[The Sunday Star-Times]] show police have 'presented' Tasers to offenders 797 times since March 2010 and, of these, they were fired 102 times. However, the police's Tactical Options Research database shows the weapons were ineffective on 36 of those 102 occasions, meaning the weapons worked only two-thirds of the time. |access-date=July 17, 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110719173939/http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/5297218/The-shocking-truth-about-Tasers |archive-date=July 19, 2011 |url-status=live }}</ref> The Taser device had been "unintentionally discharged" more often than they had been used properly in the line of duty.

In October 2012, police said the TASER device had been "very successful in de-escalating dangerous and potentially life-threatening situations". Since their introduction, TASER CEWs had been presented 1320 times but only fired 212 times, resulting in 13 injuries.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.3news.co.nz/Tasers-extremely-useful-police/tabid/423/articleID/274423/Default.aspx |work=3 News NZ |title=Tasers 'extremely useful': police |date=29 October 2012 |access-date=2018-01-06 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131209173412/http://www.3news.co.nz/Tasers-extremely-useful-police/tabid/423/articleID/274423/Default.aspx |archive-date=2013-12-09 |url-status=dead }}</ref> In July 2015, the [[Police Commissioner]] announced that TASER CEWs would be routinely carried by all police officers.<ref>{{cite web|title=Commissioner announces routine carriage of Taser by first response staff|url=http://www.police.govt.nz/news/release/commissioner-announces-routine-carriage-taser-first-response-staff|website=New Zealand Police|publisher=31 July 2015|access-date=8 March 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160308163917/http://www.police.govt.nz/news/release/commissioner-announces-routine-carriage-taser-first-response-staff|archive-date=8 March 2016|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=Taser decision good for public and police safety|url=http://www.policeassn.org.nz/newsroom/publications/media-releases/taser-decision-good-public-and-police-safety|website=New Zealand Police Association|publisher=31 July 2015|access-date=8 March 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160308161702/http://www.policeassn.org.nz/newsroom/publications/media-releases/taser-decision-good-public-and-police-safety|archive-date=8 March 2016|url-status=live}}</ref>

===Russia===
Stun guns and tasers are made in Russia can be purchased for self-defense without special permission, however, under the Federal Law No. 150 "On Weapons" of the Russian Federation it's illegal to import and subsequent sale of any foreign stun devices or tasers into the country. The ban has been in place since the first version of the law was approved in 1996.<ref>{{Cite web|url = http://pravo.gov.ru/proxy/ips/?docbody=&nd=102044679|title = Официальный интернет-портал правовой информации|author = |date = |publisher = |access-date = 2015-01-02|archive-date = 2015-01-02|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20150102164044/http://pravo.gov.ru/proxy/ips/?docbody=&nd=102044679|url-status = live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://oberon-alpha.ru/police_stungun|title=OBERON-ALPHA: DEVELOPMENT AND PRODUCTION OF POLICE WEAPONS AND SPECIAL EQUIPMENT|access-date=Jan 19, 2023}}</ref>

=== South Korea ===
Requires a permit to manufacture, distribute, purchase or carry an electroshock weapon. Any electroshock devices with a projectile (TASER devices) are completely banned for civilian use.{{citation needed|date=October 2018}}

=== Sweden ===
Taser devices and other electronic control devices are considered [[firearm]]s in Sweden and are banned for civilian use. The [[Swedish Police Authority]] had purchased a limited quantity of Taser CEWs, and was about to initiate field trials when these were cancelled in 2005 after an ethics commission found that the need for (and risks of) such devices was not firmly established.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.svd.se/nyheter/inrikes/etiska-radet-sager-nej-till-elpistol_449985.svd |title=Etiska rådet säger nej till elpistol |newspaper=Svenska Dagbladet |year=2005 |quote=[[Svenska Dagbladet]] reports that the Ethics Commission does not approve of Taser field trials, as the need and risks had not been firmly established. They also disapprove of [[bean bags]] and [[rubber bullets]], as well as [[SWAT]] teams having access to [[sniper rifles]]. They also find the use of [[Hollow-point bullet|hollow-point ammo]] (Speer Gold Dot) questionable. |access-date=October 12, 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130624005705/http://www.svd.se/nyheter/inrikes/etiska-radet-sager-nej-till-elpistol_449985.svd |archive-date=June 24, 2013 |url-status=live }}</ref> The purchased Taser CEWs were then donated to Finland, where field trials were initiated. Since January 1, 2018, the Swedish police have been conducting tests with electroshock weapons for a two-year period and during the trial period approximately 700 police officers are trained. The move has been welcomed by the country's union for law enforcement.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.thelocal.se/20160530/swedish-police-to-trial-use-of-taser-guns|title=Swedish police to trial use of taser guns|date=30 May 2016|website=thelocal.se|access-date=6 April 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171201182812/https://www.thelocal.se/20160530/swedish-police-to-trial-use-of-taser-guns|archive-date=1 December 2017|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web | url=https://polisen.se/om-polisen/polisens-arbete/elchockvapen/ | title=Elchockvapen {{pipe}} Polismyndigheten | access-date=2018-12-02 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181122215500/https://polisen.se/om-polisen/polisens-arbete/elchockvapen/ | archive-date=2018-11-22 | url-status=live }}</ref>

=== United Kingdom ===
{{See also|Police uniforms and equipment in the United Kingdom#Tasers}}
TASER CEWs are considered "prohibited weapons" under the [[Firearms Act 1968]] and possession or construction is an offence.<ref name="taserpolicyaspeciallytrained1">{{cite web |url=http://www.acpo.police.uk/documents/uniformed/2011/20110830%20UOBA%20Extended%20Operational%20Deployment%20of%20Taser%20for%20Specially%20Trained%20Units_Ver%204_Dec%202008.pdf |title=The National Police Chiefs Council (NPCC) |access-date=11 May 2015 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140207012829/http://www.acpo.police.uk/documents/uniformed/2011/20110830%20UOBA%20Extended%20Operational%20Deployment%20of%20Taser%20for%20Specially%20Trained%20Units_Ver%204_Dec%202008.pdf |archive-date=7 February 2014 }}</ref> The maximum sentence for possession is ten years in prison and an unlimited fine.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=1628564&ActiveTextDocId=16289590|title=Schedule 6 to the Firearms Act 1968|website=statutelaw.gov.uk|access-date=6 April 2018}}{{Dead link|date=March 2024 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}</ref>  There is a minimum sentence of 5 years imprisonment if the TASER device is disguised as another object such as a torch or a mobile phone.

A related clause being considered for addition to "The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act" would make electronic components, assemblies and other devices that can be adapted or assembled to build an improvized CEW, as well as the schematic diagrams for them illegal in the UK. This would include for example HV generator modules that generate over 2KV unloaded which would also cover items like CCFL driver modules, laptop backlight PCBs, car ionizers, TV cold cathode driver boards, photomultiplier drivers, night vision devices and plasma globes. The issue here is that such a far reaching Act would be detrimental to legitimate repair companies, scientists and hobbyists and do very little to deter criminals.

TASER CEWs are now used by some British police as a "less lethal" weapon. It was also announced in July 2007, that the deployment of TASER devices by specially trained police units who are not firearms officers, but who are facing similar threats of violence, would be trialled in ten police forces.<ref name="Reuters1">{{cite news |url=http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKL1912649520070719 |archive-url=https://archive.today/20130201051856/http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKL1912649520070719 |url-status=dead |archive-date=February 1, 2013 |title=Police to be allowed wider use of Tasers |date=July 19, 2007 |publisher=Reuters |access-date=January 29, 2010}}</ref> The 12-month trial commenced on 1 September 2007, and took place in the following forces: [[Avon and Somerset Constabulary|Avon & Somerset]], [[Devon and Cornwall Constabulary|Devon & Cornwall]], [[Gwent Police|Gwent]], [[Lincolnshire Police|Lincolnshire]], [[Merseyside Police|Merseyside]], [[Metropolitan Police]], [[Northamptonshire Police|Northamptonshire]], [[Northumbria Police|Northumbria]], [[North Wales Police|North Wales]] and [[West Yorkshire Police|West Yorkshire]].<ref name="Reuters1"/>

Following the completion of the trial, the [[Home Secretary]] agreed on 24 November 2008 to allow [[chief police officer]]s of all forces in England and Wales, from 1 December 2008, to extend TASER CEW use to specially trained units in accordance with current [[Association of Chief Police Officers]] policy and guidance, which states that TASER CEWs can be used only where officers would be facing violence or threats of violence of such severity that they would need to use force to protect the public, themselves, and/or the subject(s).<ref name="timesonline1">{{cite news |url=http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article5204516.ece |title=Police to get 10,000 Taser guns |publisher=Times Online |date=November 23, 2008 |access-date=May 8, 2009 |location=London |first=David |last=Leppard}}{{dead link|date=September 2024|bot=medic}}{{cbignore|bot=medic}}</ref>

Also, in Scotland [[Strathclyde Police]] agreed in February 2010 to arm 30 specially trained police officers using the TASER X26 CEW. The pilot would last three months and would be deployed in Glasgow City Centre and Rutherglen.<ref name="strathclydepolice1">{{cite news|url=https://www.strathclyde.police.uk/index.asp?locID=283&docID=7490 |title=Strathclyde Police allowed to carry tasers |publisher=Strathclyde Police Force |access-date=March 27, 2010 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110716151106/https://www.strathclyde.police.uk/index.asp?locID=283&docID=7490 |archive-date=July 16, 2011 }}</ref>

A fund for up to 10,000 additional TASER devices is being made available for individual chief police officers to bid for TASER devices based on their own operational requirements.<ref name="timesonline1"/>

=== United States ===
Court cases in recent years have addressed the legality of TASER CEW use by police officers. In ''[[Bryan v. MacPherson]]'', the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a TASER CEW had been used in a way that constituted excessive force and hence a violation of the [[Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fourth Amendment]]. In the latter case ''Mattos v. Agarano'',<ref>{{Cite web |title=Mattos v. Agarano |author=United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit |url=http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2011/10/17/08-15567.pdf }}</ref> the same Court of Appeals found that in two situations involving TASER CEW use, one in drive-stun and one in dart mode, officers had used excessive force. According to an article in ''Police Chief'' magazine, this decision implies guidelines for the use of TASER CEWs and other Electronic Control Devices in gaining compliance (in a setting where safety is not an issue), including that the officer must give warning before each application, and that the suspect must be capable of compliance, with enough time to consider a warning, and to recover from the extreme pain of any prior application of the TASER device; and that TASER devices must not be used on children, the elderly, and women who are visibly pregnant or inform the officer of their pregnancy.<ref>{{Cite journal |title=Electronic Control Devices: Where Are We Now? |journal=The Police Chief |date=January 2012 |volume=79 |author=Eric P. Daigle |url=http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=print_display&article_id=2574&issue_id=12012 |access-date=2018-01-06 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131212110020/http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=print_display&article_id=2574&issue_id=12012 |archive-date=2013-12-12 |url-status=live }}</ref>

In 1991, an electroshock device supplied by [[Tasertron]] to the [[Los Angeles Police Department]] failed to subdue [[Rodney King]]—even after he was shocked twice with the device—causing officers to believe he was on [[Phencyclidine|PCP]].<ref>{{cite news |title=Officer's lawyer says darts used of King are missing |newspaper=Daily News (Los Angeles) |date=April 28, 1991}}</ref> Its lack of effectiveness was blamed on a possible battery problem.<ref name="NYTimes_2003_X26">{{cite news |first=Teresa |last=Riordan |title=TECHNOLOGY; New Taser Finds Unexpected Home In Hands of Police |date=November 17, 2003 |work=[[The New York Times]] |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/17/business/technology-new-taser-finds-unexpected-home-in-hands-of-police.html |access-date=May 24, 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090607043228/http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/17/business/technology-new-taser-finds-unexpected-home-in-hands-of-police.html |archive-date=June 7, 2009 |url-status=live }}</ref>

==== Legality ====
TASER devices are considered the same as firearms by the United States government for the purposes of the [[Second Amendment to the United States Constitution|Second Amendment]] protection, the right to keep and bear arms.<ref name="Savage2016">{{cite news|url=http://www.abqjournal.com/744162/politics/washington/supreme-court-suggests-second-amendment-protects-carrying-a-stun-gun.html|title=Supreme Court suggests Second Amendment protects carrying a stun gun|date=21 March 2016|work=Albuquerque Journal|last1=Savage|first1=David G.|access-date=22 March 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160326183946/http://www.abqjournal.com/744162/politics/washington/supreme-court-suggests-second-amendment-protects-carrying-a-stun-gun.html|archive-date=26 March 2016|url-status=live}}</ref> They can be legally carried (concealed or openly) without a permit in almost every state.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.defenseproducts101.com/statestatutesummary_page2.html|title=TASER Laws|publisher=World Net Enterprises, Inc.|access-date=October 10, 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131004043138/http://www.defenseproducts101.com/statestatutesummary_page2.html|archive-date=October 4, 2013|url-status=unfit}}</ref> Their use in Connecticut, Illinois, and Wisconsin<ref>{{cite web|url=http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/175/60|title=Wisconsin Statute 175.60|publisher=Wisconsin State Legislature|access-date=7 March 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131002214043/http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/175/60|archive-date=2 October 2013|url-status=live}}</ref> is legal with restrictions.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.worthprotectionsecurity.com/c2_taser.htm|title=Taser C2, C2 Taser, Less-than-Lethal Weapons, Non-Lethal Weapons|publisher=Worthprotectionsecurity.com|access-date=October 14, 2009|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080429233430/http://www.worthprotectionsecurity.com/c2_taser.htm|archive-date=April 29, 2008}}</ref>

In March 2016, the [[Supreme Court of the United States]] ruled in ''[[Caetano v. Massachusetts]]'' that the [[Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court]] erred in its rationale in upholding a law that prohibited the possession of stun guns. Though the decision didn't explicitly rule that stun gun bans are unconstitutional, it created doubt in laws forbidding their possession<ref name="Savage2016" /> which led to many legal challenges and subsequent legalization of stun gun possession in previously prohibitive jurisdictions.<ref name=":0">{{Cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/07/22/stun-guns-being-decriminalized/|title=Stun guns being decriminalized|newspaper=Washington Post|access-date=2016-11-16|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161116103854/https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/07/22/stun-guns-being-decriminalized/|archive-date=2016-11-16|url-status=live}}</ref>

{{As of|2022}}, some local jurisdictions retain bans on stun guns.

===== Hawaii =====
Hawaii's 1976 ban on stun guns was challenged in at least two lawsuits.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://hawaiifreepress.com/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/ID/21432/Lawsuit-Hawaii-Taser-Ban-is-Unconstitutional.aspx|title=Lawsuit: Hawaii Taser Ban is Unconstitutional > Hawaii Free Press|website=hawaiifreepress.com|language=en-US|access-date=2018-04-15|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180415111649/http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/ID/21432/Lawsuit-Hawaii-Taser-Ban-is-Unconstitutional.aspx|archive-date=2018-04-15|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|title=Photographer challenges Hawaii Taser ban on 2nd Amendment grounds > Hawaii News Now|url=http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/38771482/hawaii-man-challenges-hawaii-stun-gun-ban-on-2nd-amendment-grounds|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180803182442/http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/38771482/hawaii-man-challenges-hawaii-stun-gun-ban-on-2nd-amendment-grounds|archive-date=2018-08-03|access-date=2018-08-04|website=www.hawaiinewsnow.com|date=31 July 2018 |language=en-US}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=http://blog.californiarighttocarry.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Young-v-Hawaii-Opening-Brief.pdf|title=Young v. Hawaii|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180416012746/http://blog.californiarighttocarry.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Young-v-Hawaii-Opening-Brief.pdf|archive-date=2018-04-16|url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|date=2020-01-03|title=Judge Puts Hawaii Taser Case On Hold|url=https://www.civilbeat.org/2020/01/judge-puts-hawaii-taser-case-on-hold/|access-date=2021-08-04|website=Honolulu Civil Beat|language=en}}</ref> As a result, the legislature passed HB891, legalizing stun guns in Hawaii as of January 1, 2022.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Hawaii HB891 {{!}} 2021 {{!}} Regular Session|url=https://legiscan.com/HI/bill/HB891/2021|access-date=2021-08-04|website=LegiScan|language=en}}</ref> A permit is not required but sellers must perform background checks and provide safety training.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Solina |first=Samie |title=New law allows Hawaii residents to legally purchase, carry stun gun for self-defense |url=https://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/2022/01/02/new-law-allows-hawaii-residents-legally-purchase-carry-stun-gun-self-defense/ |access-date=2022-10-05 |website=hawaiinewsnow |date=2 January 2022 |language=en}}</ref>

===== Massachusetts =====
Previously, the U.S. Supreme Court had overruled the [[Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court]] in the ''Caetano'' case. However, when the case was [[Remand (court procedure)|remanded]], the state dismissed the charges, thus allowing it to retain its ban on stun guns at the time.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/07/07/charges-dropped-in-caetano-v-massachusetts-second-amendment-stun-gun-case/|title=Opinion {{!}} Charges dropped in Caetano v. Massachusetts Second Amendment stun gun case|newspaper=Washington Post|access-date=2017-05-01|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170407195209/https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/07/07/charges-dropped-in-caetano-v-massachusetts-second-amendment-stun-gun-case/|archive-date=2017-04-07|url-status=live}}</ref> The law remained in force but was challenged in a separate lawsuit.<ref>{{Cite news|url=http://www.ammoland.com/2017/03/two-new-second-amendment-challenges/|title=Two New Second Amendment Challenges|date=2017-03-01|work=AmmoLand.com Shooting Sports News|access-date=2017-03-04|language=en-US|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170304193914/http://www.ammoland.com/2017/03/two-new-second-amendment-challenges/|archive-date=2017-03-04|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.cir-usa.org/2017/02/lawsuit-filed-challenging-massachusetts-ban-on-non-lethal-self-defense-weapons/|title=Lawsuit Filed Challenging Massachusetts' Ban on Non-Lethal Self-Defense Weapons {{!}} The Center for Individual Rights|website=www.cir-usa.org|date=16 February 2017 |language=en-US|access-date=2017-03-04|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170304193949/https://www.cir-usa.org/2017/02/lawsuit-filed-challenging-massachusetts-ban-on-non-lethal-self-defense-weapons/|archive-date=2017-03-04|url-status=live}}</ref> On April 17, 2018, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, in ''Ramirez v. Commonwealth'', ruled that the state's 2004 ban on stun guns is unconstitutional.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2018/04/17/massachusetts-court-strikes-down-ban-on-stun-guns|title=Massachusetts court strikes down ban on stun guns {{!}} Boston.com|date=2018-04-17|work=Boston.com|access-date=2018-04-24|language=en-US|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180424164546/https://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2018/04/17/massachusetts-court-strikes-down-ban-on-stun-guns|archive-date=2018-04-24|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|url=https://reason.com/volokh/2018/04/17/massachusetts-high-court-strikes-down-st|title=Massachusetts High Court Strikes Down Stun Gun Ban|date=2018-04-17|work=Reason.com|access-date=2018-04-18|language=en|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180419094607/http://reason.com/volokh/2018/04/17/massachusetts-high-court-strikes-down-st|archive-date=2018-04-19|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2018/04/17/12340.pdf|title=JORGE RAMIREZ vs. COMMONWEALTH|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180425032651/https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2018/04/17/12340.pdf|archive-date=2018-04-25|url-status=live}}</ref>

===== Michigan =====
In 2012, Michigan's ban on stun guns was ruled unconstitutional by the [[Michigan Court of Appeals]].<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://volokh.com/2012/06/27/michigan-court-of-appeals-strikes-down-stun-gun-ban-says-second-amendment-applies-to-open-carry-in-public/|title=Michigan Court of Appeals Strikes Down Stun Gun Ban, Says Second Amendment Applies to Open Carry in Public|last=Volokh|first=Eugene|date=2012-06-27|website=The Volokh Conspiracy|access-date=2017-05-01|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170106123654/http://volokh.com/2012/06/27/michigan-court-of-appeals-strikes-down-stun-gun-ban-says-second-amendment-applies-to-open-carry-in-public/|archive-date=2017-01-06|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://caselaw.findlaw.com/mi-court-of-appeals/1604778.html|title=FindLaw's Court of Appeals of Michigan case and opinions|website=Findlaw|access-date=2017-05-01|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180107063451/http://caselaw.findlaw.com/mi-court-of-appeals/1604778.html|archive-date=2018-01-07|url-status=live}}</ref>

===== New Jersey =====
On November 15, 2016, it was reported that New Jersey's Attorney General [[Christopher Porrino]] had conceded that the state's 1985<ref>{{Cite news|url=http://www.northjersey.com/story/news/new-jersey/2017/10/20/stun-gun-nj-taser/781019001/|title=Stun gun ban to end in New Jersey|work=North Jersey|access-date=2017-10-25|language=en|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171025012405/http://www.northjersey.com/story/news/new-jersey/2017/10/20/stun-gun-nj-taser/781019001/|archive-date=2017-10-25|url-status=live}}</ref> ban on stun guns is unconstitutional.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/11/14/new-jersey-concedes-that-state-stun-gun-ban-violates-the-second-amendment/|title=New Jersey concedes that state stun gun ban violates the Second Amendment|newspaper=Washington Post|access-date=2016-11-16|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161115145243/https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/11/14/new-jersey-concedes-that-state-stun-gun-ban-violates-the-second-amendment/|archive-date=2016-11-15|url-status=live}}</ref> On April 26, 2017, the lawsuit was settled by agreeing that the ban was unconstitutional and to promulgate regulations to allow for the possession of stun guns.<ref>{{Cite news|url=http://www.trentonian.com/general-news/20170426/new-jersey-settles-stun-gun-ban-lawsuit|title=New Jersey settles stun gun ban lawsuit|access-date=2017-04-27|language=en|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170426234333/http://www.trentonian.com/general-news/20170426/new-jersey-settles-stun-gun-ban-lawsuit|archive-date=2017-04-26|url-status=live}}</ref> The regulations allow for people over 18 to purchase stun guns, effective October 20, 2017.<ref>{{Cite news|url=http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2017/08/nj_moves_to_legalize_stun_guns_after_2nd_amendment.html|title=N.J. moves to legalize stun guns after 2nd Amendment suit|work=NJ.com|access-date=2017-08-24|language=en-US|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170825025451/http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2017/08/nj_moves_to_legalize_stun_guns_after_2nd_amendment.html|archive-date=2017-08-25|url-status=live}}</ref>

===== New York =====
New York's ban on stun guns is being challenged by Matthew Avitabile.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/12/new-york-law-banning-right-to-bear-electronic-arms-faces-lawsuit/|title=New York law banning right to bear "electronic" arms faces lawsuit|access-date=2016-12-09|newspaper=Ars Technica|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161209000250/http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/12/new-york-law-banning-right-to-bear-electronic-arms-faces-lawsuit/|archive-date=2016-12-09|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.ecbalaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Avitabile.-Decision-and-Order.pdf|title=MATTHEW AVITABILE vs. LT. COL. GEORGE BEACH|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180804232005/http://www.ecbalaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Avitabile.-Decision-and-Order.pdf|archive-date=2018-08-04|url-status=live}}</ref> On March 22, 2019, the ban was ruled unconstitutional by the [[United States District Court for the Northern District of New York]].<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://nypost.com/2019/03/22/judge-shoots-down-new-yorks-ban-on-tasers/|title=Judge shoots down New York's ban on tasers|last=Andrew Denney|date=2019-03-22|website=New York Post|language=en|access-date=2019-03-25|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190325014240/https://nypost.com/2019/03/22/judge-shoots-down-new-yorks-ban-on-tasers/|archive-date=2019-03-25|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.scribd.com/document/402776387/NY-Stun-Gun-Decision|title=NY Stun Gun Decision {{!}} District Of Columbia V. Heller {{!}} Second Amendment To The United States Constitution|website=Scribd|language=en|access-date=2019-03-25|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190325014244/https://www.scribd.com/document/402776387/NY-Stun-Gun-Decision|archive-date=2019-03-25|url-status=live}}</ref> But it was ruled constitutional by a state court on October 15, 2019.<ref>{{Citation |title=People v. Johnson |date=October 15, 2019 |url=https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7799724015105866735 |volume=65 |pages=1024 |access-date=2022-03-16}}</ref>

===== Rhode Island =====
Rhode Island's ban on stun guns<ref>{{Cite web|title=11-47-42|url=http://webserver.rilin.state.ri.us/Statutes/TITLE11/11-47/11-47-42.HTM|access-date=2021-08-04|website=webserver.rilin.state.ri.us}}</ref> was ruled unconstitutional in March 2022.<ref>{{Cite web |last= |first= |last2= |first2= |last3= |last4= |first4= |title=Federal judge strikes down R.I.'s stun gun ban - The Boston Globe |url=https://www.bostonglobe.com/2022/03/15/metro/federal-judge-strikes-down-ris-stun-gun-ban/ |access-date=2022-03-16 |website=BostonGlobe.com |language=en-US}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=R.I. Stun Gun Ban Struck Down |url=https://reason.com/volokh/2022/03/15/r-i-stun-gun-ban-struck-down/ |access-date=2022-03-16 |website=Reason.com |date=15 March 2022 |language=en-US}}</ref>

===== Washington D.C. =====
On September 29, 2016, Washington D.C. announced that it intends on repealing its ban on stun guns in response to a lawsuit.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/dc-to-lift-stun-gun-ban-after-constitutional-challenge-by-gun-rights-advocates/2016/09/27/611579ac-84ba-11e6-ac72-a29979381495_story.html|title=D.C. to lift stun-gun ban after constitutional challenge by gun rights advocates|newspaper=Washington Post|access-date=2016-09-29|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160930051144/https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/dc-to-lift-stun-gun-ban-after-constitutional-challenge-by-gun-rights-advocates/2016/09/27/611579ac-84ba-11e6-ac72-a29979381495_story.html|archive-date=2016-09-30|url-status=live}}</ref> The new law regulating stun guns for persons 18 years or older took effect on May 19, 2017.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://uguardsecurityproducts.com/stun-gun-laws/ |title=Notice ID 6578363: Law 21-281, Stun Gun Regulation Amendment Act of 2016, DC Regulations|website=www.dcregs.dc.gov|access-date=2017-07-07}}</ref> [[Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia|Metropolitan Police Department]] issued a statement about the legality of stun guns.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://mpdc.dc.gov/page/mace-pepper-spray-self-defense-sprays-and-stun-guns|title=Mace, Pepper Spray, Self-Defense Sprays and Stun Guns {{!}} mpdc|website=mpdc.dc.gov|language=en|access-date=2017-07-07|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170902113600/https://mpdc.dc.gov/page/mace-pepper-spray-self-defense-sprays-and-stun-guns|archive-date=2017-09-02|url-status=live}}</ref>

===== Virgin Islands =====
The [[United States Virgin Islands]] repealed its stun gun ban in 2016.<ref name=":0" />

===== Wisconsin =====
In legalizing [[Concealed carry in the United States|concealed carry]] of firearms in 2011, Wisconsin also legalized stun gun possession for people with a license.<ref name=":0" /><ref>{{Cite news|url=http://archive.jsonline.com/news/wisconsin/stun-guns-now-legal-ol36b3o-134545158.html|title=Stun guns now legal|access-date=2017-05-01|language=en|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170514172027/http://archive.jsonline.com/news/wisconsin/stun-guns-now-legal-ol36b3o-134545158.html|archive-date=2017-05-14|url-status=live}}</ref>

===== Localities within states =====

====== Chicago ======
[[Chicago]] bans the sale of stun guns within its limits and imposes an application requirement followed by a 120-day waiting period for attempting to purchase a stun gun from outside the city.{{citation needed|date=May 2025}} Illinois law requires licensure prior to possessing a stun gun in addition to several other restrictions.<ref>{{cite web |title=Gov. Blagojevich signs law requiring firearm license to own a stun gun |url=https://www.illinois.gov/news/press-release.4091.html |website=www.illinois.gov |publisher=State of Illinois |language=en |date=23 June 2005}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=http://library.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/Illinois/chicago_il/title8offensesaffectingpublicpeacemorals/chapter8-24firearmsandotherweapons?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:chicago_il$anc=JD_8-24-020|title=American Legal Publishing - Online Library|website=library.amlegal.com|access-date=2017-05-01|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171016175214/http://library.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/Illinois/chicago_il/title8offensesaffectingpublicpeacemorals/chapter8-24firearmsandotherweapons?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:chicago_il$anc=JD_8-24-020|archive-date=2017-10-16|url-status=live}}</ref> On March 21, 2019, the [[Supreme Court of Illinois]] ruled unanimously that the ban on possession or carriage of stun guns in public is facially unconstitutional. It ruled that a section of law which prohibits the carrying or transportation of stun guns is unconstitutional because an exception against the prohibition (possessing a concealed carry permit) only covers handguns, thus there is no exception for stun guns, and therefore the ban is unconstitutional. This leaves stun gun carriage legal without a permit.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://hoiabc.com/news/political/2019/03/21/illinois-supreme-court-rules-residents-can-carry-tasers-stun-guns-in-public/|title=Illinois Supreme Court rules residents can carry Tasers, stun guns in public|date=2019-03-21|website=HOIABC|language=en-US|access-date=2019-03-25|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190325025243/https://hoiabc.com/news/political/2019/03/21/illinois-supreme-court-rules-residents-can-carry-tasers-stun-guns-in-public/|archive-date=2019-03-25|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.illinoiscourts.gov/Opinions/SupremeCourt/2019/122951.pdf|title=Illinois v. Webb|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190325023743/http://www.illinoiscourts.gov/Opinions/SupremeCourt/2019/122951.pdf|archive-date=2019-03-25|url-status=live}}</ref>

====== Delaware localities ======
[[Newark, Delaware|Newark]]'s 2012 ban<ref>{{Cite web|title=Ordinance 12-04|url=https://newarkde.gov/DocumentCenter/View/2079/2E}}</ref> on stun guns was repealed on February 24, 2020.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Shannon|first=Josh|title=Newark repeals legally dubious ban on stun guns|url=https://www.newarkpostonline.com/news/newark-repeals-legally-dubious-ban-on-stun-guns/article_f6109165-aa9e-54ef-b74a-23952d10a609.html|access-date=2021-08-04|website=Newark Post|date=26 February 2020 |language=en}}</ref> [[New Castle County, Delaware|New Castle County]]<ref>{{Cite web|title=Municode Library|url=https://library.municode.com/de/new_castle_county/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=PTIICO_CH22OFMIPR_ART3WE_S22.03.010STGUTAGU|access-date=2017-05-01|website=www.municode.com|language=en}}</ref> and [[Wilmington, Delaware|Wilmington]]<ref>{{Cite web|title=Municode Library|url=https://library.municode.com/de/wilmington/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=PTIIWICO_CH36MIOFPR_ARTVOFINPUSA_DIV2WEREOF_S36-161STGUET|access-date=2021-08-04|website=library.municode.com}}</ref><ref name=":1">{{Cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/05/01/new-jersey-stun-gun-ban-struck-down-by-consent-order-new-orleans-ban-repealed/|title=Opinion {{!}} New Jersey stun gun ban struck down, by consent order; New Orleans ban repealed|newspaper=Washington Post|access-date=2017-05-01|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170501212152/https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/05/01/new-jersey-stun-gun-ban-struck-down-by-consent-order-new-orleans-ban-repealed/|archive-date=2017-05-01|url-status=live}}</ref> retain their bans.

====== Iowa localities ======
[[Crawford County, Iowa|Crawford County]] and [[Denison, Iowa|Denison]] city (which is within Crawford County) ban stun guns.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.stun-gun-defense-products.com/stun-gun-blog/2013/09/iowa-stun-gun-and-taser-law/|title=Iowa Stun Gun and Taser Law {{!}} Stun Gun Defense Products Blog|website=www.stun-gun-defense-products.com|date=16 September 2013 |access-date=2017-05-01|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171212235850/http://www.stun-gun-defense-products.com/stun-gun-blog/2013/09/iowa-stun-gun-and-taser-law/|archive-date=2017-12-12|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|url=http://outdoorsmagazine.net/stun-gun-laws/|title=Stun Gun Laws - Are They Legal in Your State? - Outdoors Magazine|work=Outdoors Magazine|access-date=2017-05-01|language=en-US|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170615234625/http://outdoorsmagazine.net/stun-gun-laws/|archive-date=2017-06-15|url-status=live}}</ref>

====== Maryland localities ======
[[Anne Arundel County, Maryland|Anne Arundel County]] lifted its ban on stun guns in 2013<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2013/05/06/anne-arundel-county-lifts-ban-on-tasers-stun-guns-for-residents/|title=Anne Arundel County Lifts Ban On Tasers & Stun Guns For Residents|last=says|first=BeEtLjOoZ|date=6 May 2013 |access-date=2017-05-01|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171113113820/http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2013/05/06/anne-arundel-county-lifts-ban-on-tasers-stun-guns-for-residents/|archive-date=2017-11-13|url-status=live}}</ref> and [[Harford County, Maryland|Harford County]] did so in 2014.<ref>{{Cite news|url=http://wtop.com/anne-arundel-county/2017/02/md-jurisdictions-strike-stun-gun-bans/|title=Annapolis strikes down stun gun ban|date=2017-02-28|work=WTOP|access-date=2017-05-01|language=en-US|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170521082820/http://wtop.com/anne-arundel-county/2017/02/md-jurisdictions-strike-stun-gun-bans/|archive-date=2017-05-21|url-status=live}}</ref> [[Howard County, Maryland|Howard County]], facing a lawsuit over its ban on stun guns,<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.foxnews.com/us/maryland-county-stun-gun-ban-prompts-second-amendment-lawsuit|title=Maryland county stun gun ban prompts Second Amendment lawsuit|date=2017-02-05|newspaper=Fox News|access-date=2017-02-06|language=en-US|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170205234540/http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/02/05/maryland-county-stun-gun-ban-prompts-second-amendment-lawsuit.html|archive-date=2017-02-05|url-status=live}}</ref> repealed its law on February 21, 2017;<ref>{{Cite news|url=http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/howard/ellicott-city/ph-ho-cf-kittleman-tasers-bill-0223-20170223-story.html|title=Prompted by lawsuit, Howard County votes to lift electronic weapons ban|last=Waseem|first=Fatimah|newspaper=Howard County Times|access-date=2017-02-24|language=en-US|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170224214308/http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/howard/ellicott-city/ph-ho-cf-kittleman-tasers-bill-0223-20170223-story.html|archive-date=2017-02-24|url-status=live}}</ref> [[Annapolis, Maryland|Annapolis]] voted to repeal its ban on February 27, 2017;<ref>{{Cite news|url=http://www.capitalgazette.com/news/annapolis/ph-ac-cn-electronic-guns-0228-20170227-story.html|title=City Council repeals electronic gun ban|last=Cook|first=Chase|work=capitalgazette.com|access-date=2017-03-09|language=en-US|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170307034706/http://www.capitalgazette.com/news/annapolis/ph-ac-cn-electronic-guns-0228-20170227-story.html|archive-date=2017-03-07|url-status=live}}</ref> [[Baltimore County, Maryland|Baltimore County]] repealed its local ordinance in April 2017;<ref>{{Cite news|url=http://www.abc2news.com/news/region/baltimore-county/baltimore-co-leaders-repeal-ban-on-tasers-stun-guns|title=Baltimore Co. leaders repeal ban on tasers, stun guns|last=Singh|first=Nadia|date=2017-04-04|work=WMAR|access-date=2017-04-10|language=en-US|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170411055140/http://www.abc2news.com/news/region/baltimore-county/baltimore-co-leaders-repeal-ban-on-tasers-stun-guns|archive-date=2017-04-11|url-status=dead}}</ref> [[Baltimore]] city's ban, in response to a lawsuit,<ref>{{Cite news|url=http://foxbaltimore.com/news/local/federal-judge-agrees-to-repeal-stun-gun-ban-in-baltimore|title=Federal judge agrees to repeal stun gun ban in Baltimore|last=Orman|first=Shelley|work=WBFF|access-date=2017-05-01|language=en-US|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170426194100/http://foxbaltimore.com/news/local/federal-judge-agrees-to-repeal-stun-gun-ban-in-baltimore|archive-date=2017-04-26|url-status=live}}</ref> was repealed on May 15, 2017<ref>{{Cite news|url=http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/baltimore-city/politics/bs-md-ci-tasers-20170515-story.html|title=Baltimore City Council votes to legalize stun guns|last=Broadwater|first=Luke|work=baltimoresun.com|access-date=2017-05-17|language=en-US|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170516215045/http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/baltimore-city/politics/bs-md-ci-tasers-20170515-story.html|archive-date=2017-05-16|url-status=live}}</ref> but retains bans on possession in public schools and state or city public buildings;<ref>{{Cite web|title=§ 59-28(b)(1)|url=https://ca.baltimorecity.gov/codes/Art%2019%20-%20PoliceOrds.pdf|access-date=2021-08-04|archive-date=2021-08-04|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210804143053/https://ca.baltimorecity.gov/codes/Art%2019%20-%20PoliceOrds.pdf|url-status=dead}}</ref> [[Ocean City, Maryland|Ocean City]] retains its ban but exempts from the ban homeowners in their home or persons with a concealed weapons permit.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Municode Library|url=https://www.municode.com/library/md/ocean_city/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=PTIICOOR_CH58OFMIPR_ARTIIIOFINPUSA_DIV4ELWE_S58-162SAPOELWEPR|access-date=2017-05-01|website=www.municode.com|language=en}}</ref>

======  New Orleans ======
[[New Orleans]]' ban on stun guns was challenged in November 2016<ref>{{Cite news |last=Mustian |first=Jim |title=New Orleans' ban on stun guns under fire, suit claims law is unconstitutional |newspaper=The Advocate |url=http://www.theadvocate.com/new_orleans/news/courts/article_5fd74658-b00f-11e6-a2e6-57d1fb2ee345.html |url-status=live |access-date=2016-11-24 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161125110323/http://www.theadvocate.com/new_orleans/news/courts/article_5fd74658-b00f-11e6-a2e6-57d1fb2ee345.html |archive-date=2016-11-25}}</ref> and was eventually repealed on April 3, 2017.<ref>{{Cite news|url=http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2017/04/stun_gun_ban_ends_new_orleans.html|title=Stun guns are legal again in New Orleans after ban is repealed|work=NOLA.com|access-date=2017-05-01|language=en-US|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170426180101/http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2017/04/stun_gun_ban_ends_new_orleans.html|archive-date=2017-04-26|url-status=dead}}</ref>

====== Overland Park ======
[[Overland Park, Kansas|Overland Park]], Kansas repealed its stun gun ban in 2014.<ref name=":0" />

====== Philadelphia ======
[[Philadelphia]] repealed its 1977 stun gun ban in late October 2017.<ref>{{Cite news|url=http://www.phillymag.com/news/2017/10/24/stun-guns-legal-philadelphia/|title=Shocker! Stun Guns Soon to Be Legal in Philly|date=2017-10-24|work=Philadelphia Magazine|access-date=2017-11-04|language=en-US|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171107034751/http://www.phillymag.com/news/2017/10/24/stun-guns-legal-philadelphia/|archive-date=2017-11-07|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.guns.com/news/2017/10/27/philadelphia-removes-taser-ban-after-urging-from-2nd-amendment-group/|title=Philadelphia removes Taser ban after urging from 2A group|date=2017-10-27|work=Guns.com|access-date=2017-11-04|language=en-US|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190425064414/https://www.guns.com/news/2017/10/27/philadelphia-removes-taser-ban-after-urging-from-2nd-amendment-group|archive-date=2019-04-25|url-status=live}}</ref>

====== Washington localities ======
[[Bellingham, Washington|Bellingham]] repealed its ban on stun guns in 2016.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Bellingham/html/pdfs/2016-07-017.pdf|title=ORDINANCE NO. 2016-07-017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180107120148/http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Bellingham/html/pdfs/2016-07-017.pdf|archive-date=2018-01-07|url-status=dead}}</ref> [[Tacoma, Washington|Tacoma's]] ban<ref name=":1" /> was repealed on June 27, 2017.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/06/28/another-stun-gun-ban-repealed-this-one-in-tacoma/|title=Opinion {{!}} Another stun gun ban repealed, this one in Tacoma|newspaper=Washington Post|access-date=2017-06-28|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170712160024/https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/06/28/another-stun-gun-ban-repealed-this-one-in-tacoma/|archive-date=2017-07-12|url-status=live}}</ref> [[Ruston, Washington|Ruston]]<ref>{{Cite web|title=Municode Library|url=https://library.municode.com/wa/ruston/codes/municipal_code?nodeId=TIT9PUPESA_CH9.11AIGUSLSHWHTASIDE_9.11.015TASTGUSIDE|access-date=2017-05-01|website=www.municode.com|language=en}}</ref> retains its ban.

==See also==
* [[Bug zapper]]
* [[Electric fence]]
* [[Fly-killing device#Electric flyswatter|Electric flyswatter]]
* [[Graduated Electronic Decelerator]]

==References==
{{reflist}}

== External links ==
* [https://wayback.archive-it.org/all/20070926025514/http://www.bradford.ac.uk/acad/nlw/research_reports/docs/BNLWRP_electricalweapons_Opinion_Jan06.pdf Electrical stun weapons: alternative to lethal force or a compliance tool?, University of Bradford, UK]
* [http://www.yoursecurityguide.com/physical-effects.aspx The Physical Effects of Electroshock Weapons]
* [https://selfdefensemall.com/stun-gun-laws/ Stun Gun Laws United States]
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20090401091031/http://www.fbi.gov/publications/leb/2005/mar05leb.pdf "Use of Force, Civil Litigation, and the Taser"] ''FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin'', March 2005 (pg. 24–30)
* [http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/stun-gun.htm How Stuff Works - Stun Guns]

===Patents===
* {{US patent|8843}} - ''Electric whaling apparatus'' - 1852 patent by Albert Sonnenburg and Philipp Rechten
* {{US patent|2805067}} - ''Electric weapon'' - 1957 patent by Thomas D. Ryan
* {{US patent|5103366}} - ''Electrical stun guns and electrically conductive liquids'' - 1989 patent by Gregory Battochi

{{Authority control}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Electroshock Weapon}}
[[Category:Non-lethal weapons]]