SCOTUS Revives NYC Stun Gun Case

The Supreme Court has ordered New York City to respond to a challenge against its ban on civilian stun guns and Tasers.

State of play: The case is Calce v. New York City, and it's shaping up as a rerun of a fight the Court thought it settled a decade ago. New York City bans private possession of stun guns and Tasers outright — no permit, no exception, just a flat prohibition. Gun owners sued, arguing the ban violates the Second Amendment the same way Massachusetts's ban did.

Catch up quick:

• In 2016, the Supreme Court summarily reversed Massachusetts's high court in Caetano v. Massachusetts, rejecting the argument that stun guns fall outside Second Amendment protection because they didn't exist at the founding.
• Lower courts got the memo — technically — but kept finding new ways to uphold similar bans anyway.
• Six months ago, AmmoLand flagged that the Second Circuit looked ready to save New York City's ban by claiming challengers hadn't proven stun guns are in "common use."
• That's exactly what happened. The Second Circuit ruled against the challengers on that ground earlier this year.

The intrigue: This is the same playbook courts used against Caetano before the Supreme Court stepped in the first time. 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. 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.

Now the Supreme Court wants New York City on the record defending the ban directly. An order to respond isn't a decision to hear the case, but it signals at least one justice is paying close attention to how the Second Circuit tried to route around Caetano.

What gun owners should know: Stun gun and Taser bans exist in a handful of jurisdictions that never fully complied with the spirit of Caetano, relying instead on procedural workarounds like the "common use" evidence standard. A ruling here could force those holdouts to drop their bans or defend them under real historical scrutiny — the same Bruen framework reshaping firearm cases nationwide.

What to watch: New York City's response will show whether the city tries to distinguish its ban from Massachusetts's or simply leans on the Second Circuit's evidentiary theory. If the Supreme Court grants cert after that, expect briefing to center on whether lower courts can demand statistical proof of "common use" as a backdoor around a right the Court already recognized.

The bottom line: New York City dodged this fight in 2016 by amending its law before the Supreme Court could rule. This time, the city may not get to walk away so easily.