Short article, but the procedural move here is worth understanding — especially if you carry anything besides a firearm for self-defense.

"Rather than defy Caetano head-on, the Second Circuit demanded evidentiary proof of nationwide ownership numbers — a burden gun rights advocates say the Court's own precedent doesn't require."

This is the legal version of making you prove your carry gun is "commonly used" before you can own it. The Second Circuit knows it can't win the argument directly, so it's moving the goalposts to the evidentiary standard instead — a slow-bleed strategy that's already worked for nearly a decade since Caetano.

"Justice Alito's Caetano concurrence made clear that stun guns are commonly owned by law-abiding citizens for self-defense, particularly women who find them easier to carry and use than firearms."

That's not a minor footnote. A lot of people — especially folks who can't or won't carry a firearm — use stun guns and Tasers as their primary defense option. Blanket bans don't just affect gun guys. They strip options from people who already have fewer of them.

Idaho recognizes stun guns as a legal carry option, so this doesn't hit us directly — but we've got enough neighbors in Oregon and California who deal with restrictions like this that it matters. And the Bruen framework is still working its way through the courts. Whatever evidentiary standard survives this case is going to show up in firearm cases too.

Do you carry anything besides a firearm for self-defense — stun gun, OC spray, something else — and has that ever factored into how you think about the legal landscape around your carry setup?

Read the full article in The Handbook → | By Steve Duskett