Supreme Court Orders New York City to Defend Stun Gun Ban in ‘Caetano 2.0’

Six months ago, AmmoLand warned that the Second Circuit appeared ready to preserve New York City’s stun gun ban by claiming the challengers had not supplied enough evidence that electronic arms were in “common use.”

That is exactly what happened.

Now, the Supreme Court has ordered New York City to respond in Calce v. New York City, giving the justices an opportunity to stop lower courts from using that evidentiary maneuver to evade the Second Amendment.

The Court’s official docket shows that New York City waived its right to respond on August 6. On September 8, the Supreme Court requested a response anyway. The city’s brief is due October 8.

The order does not mean the Court has agreed to hear the case or ruled against New York City. It does mean the petition will not be rejected without the justices first receiving the city’s defense of a ban that should have been dead after Caetano v. Massachusetts.

Second Circuit’s Attempt at an Escape Route

In March 2025, AmmoLand’s Dean Weingarten reported that U.S. District Judge Edgardo Ramos had placed the “common use” burden on the challengers. Ramos held that stun guns and Tasers were not presumptively protected because the plaintiffs had not submitted sufficient evidence showing the arms were commonly possessed for lawful purposes.

When the Firearms Policy Coalition appealed, AmmoLand reported that the organization argued the ruling “[flew] in the face of the Second Amendment” because electronic weapons plainly fall within the ordinary meaning of “arms.”

Following the Second Circuit’s March 2026 oral argument, AmmoLand examined Mark Smith’s analysis of the case. Smith, host of The Four Boxes Diner, described Calce as a layup under Caetano. AmmoLand nevertheless warned that the panel appeared interested in a narrow procedural ruling that would leave the ban intact without directly declaring stun guns unprotected.

On April 13, the Second Circuit did exactly that.

Second Circuit Says Citizens Failed to Prove Their Rights

In an unpublished summary order, the Second Circuit affirmed summary judgment for New York City.

The panel held that the plaintiffs bore the burden of establishing that stun guns and Tasers are in common use for lawful purposes at the first stage of the Bruen analysis. It then faulted them for failing to introduce sufficient admissible evidence in the district court.

That allowed the city to win without proving that its ban is consistent with America’s historical tradition of arms regulation.

This is not a minor procedural dispute. It determines who must prove what when the government bans an entire category of arms.

Under Bruen, once the Second Amendment’s plain text covers a person’s conduct, the government must justify its restriction using history. But if a hostile court inserts “common use” into the plain-text inquiry, it can force citizens to prove that an arm is popular enough before the government carries any constitutional burden.

The government can then ban an arm, suppress its ownership, and argue that the resulting lack of ownership proves the arm was never protected. That is a constitutional Catch-22 created by the infringement itself.

New York City Still Defies Caetano

The Supreme Court petition, filed by the Firearms Policy Coalition, Second Amendment Foundation, and individual plaintiffs, calls the case “Caetano 2.0.”

In Caetano v. Massachusetts, the Supreme Court unanimously vacated a Massachusetts ruling that excluded stun guns from Second Amendment protection. The Court rejected the idea that an arm could be excluded because it did not exist at the Founding, was supposedly unusual, or lacked an obvious military application.

Quoting District of Columbia v. Heller, the Court reaffirmed that the Second Amendment extends “to all instruments that constitute bearable arms,” including those that did not exist in 1791.

A stun gun is a weapon carried for defense. Under the original public meaning of “arms,” the textual inquiry should end there. The government must then prove that history supports its prohibition.

New York City exempts police officers while denying ordinary citizens the same less-lethal defensive option. Even residents licensed to carry handguns cannot legally choose a stun gun or Taser instead.

Plaintiff Amanda Kennedy’s experience exposes the absurdity of that policy.

According to the petition, a pedestrian struck Kennedy’s vehicle, hit her through an open window, and attempted to open her door. Kennedy displayed a stun gun, and the attacker retreated. She did not shoot or shock him.

When responding officers discovered the stun gun, they charged Kennedy. The charge was eventually resolved through an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal, but Kennedy and the other plaintiffs remain threatened with prosecution if they possess electronic arms in New York City.

The city punished the intended victim after she stopped an assault without using deadly force. That is New York’s version of public safety.

The Stakes Extend Beyond Stun Guns

The Calce petition asks the Supreme Court to grant review, summarily reverse the Second Circuit, or hold the case pending its decision in Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins. Those consolidated cases ask whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect AR-15-style and similar semiautomatic rifles.

The same burden-shifting dispute runs through both fights.

Unlike stun guns, AR-15-style rifles are undeniably common. A 2026 National Firearms Survey estimates that approximately 26 million Americans own an AR-15-type or similarly styled rifle, with approximately 60 million such rifles in civilian hands.

But constitutional protection cannot depend entirely on whether citizens acquired an arm before politicians prohibited it. Otherwise, the government could ban every new weapon before it becomes common and then use the ban-created scarcity as its defense.

A requested response is not a victory on the merits. New York City will argue that the petition should be denied, and the challengers will have an opportunity to reply.

Still, the sequence matters. The city attempted to waive its response and let the Second Circuit’s decision stand without further argument. The Supreme Court refused to dispose of the case that way.

AmmoLand warned that the Second Circuit’s narrow ruling would not resolve the constitutional problem. It would merely package that problem for the Supreme Court. That package has now arrived.

The Second Amendment protects arms. It does not protect only those arms that citizens can prove—through market surveys, expert reports, and courtroom statistics—are popular enough to satisfy judges hostile to the right to keep and bear them.

About Duncan Johnson:

Duncan Johnson is a lifelong firearms enthusiast and unwavering defender of the Second Amendment—where “shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says. A graduate of George Mason University, he enjoys competing in local USPSA and multi-gun competitions whenever he’s not covering the latest in gun rights and firearm policy. Duncan is a regular contributor and editor-in-chief for AmmoLand News and is responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.