Federal Judge Becomes First to Uphold a Stun Gun Ban Since 2016 Supreme Court Case

New Yorkers might be able to carry a firearm for self-defense, however these in search of a less-lethal choice will proceed to be out of luck following a brand new federal court docket ruling.

On Monday, US District Court docket Decide Edgardo Ramos upheld a New York state ban and a separate New York Metropolis ban on the sale and possession of stun weapons and tasers. He decided that the plaintiffs had the burden of introducing particular proof of how widespread these weapons are and that they failed to indicate they had been fashionable sufficient to be protected by the Second Modification.

“In sum, as a result of Plaintiffs have failed to offer any proof that stun weapons and tasers are in ‘widespread use’; they’ve clearly not ‘set forth vital, probative proof on which an inexpensive fact-finder may resolve in [their] favor,’” Ramos wrote Calce v. Metropolis of New York.

The ruling makes Ramos the primary and solely federal choose to uphold a stun gun ban within the decade for the reason that Supreme Court docket of the USA (SCOTUS) issued a unanimous choice signaling that such bans are doubtless unconstitutional. Elsewhere, greater than a dozen states and localities have had their bans overturned in court docket or voluntarily repealed to keep away from related losses.

In 2016’s Caetano v. Massachusetts, SCOTUS unanimously vacated a Massachusetts Supreme Court docket ruling upholding that state’s ban on stun weapons. Whereas SCOTUS didn’t rule on the deserves of the ban straight, its opinion dismantled the Massachusetts court docket’s argument that such bans are constitutional.

“[T]he court docket concluded that stun weapons are ‘uncommon’ as a result of they’re ‘a completely trendy invention,’” the justices wrote in an unsigned opinion. “By equating ‘uncommon’ with ‘in widespread use on the time of the Second Modification’s enactment,’ the court docket’s second clarification is identical as the primary; it’s inconsistent with Heller for a similar motive.”

The Court docket reiterated that the Second Modification “extends, prima facie, to all devices that represent bearable arms, even people who weren’t in existence on the time of the founding.” It additionally emphasised that the Second Modification protected extra weapons than simply these helpful for navy service.

Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Clarence Thomas, additionally penned a concurrence. It went additional than the bulk opinion, citing statistics suggesting there have been as many as 200,000 stun weapons in civilian possession by 2009, and declaring a ban on them flatly violated the Structure.

“Whereas much less fashionable than handguns, stun weapons are extensively owned and accepted as a reliable technique of self-defense throughout the nation,” Alito wrote. “Massachusetts’ categorical ban of such weapons due to this fact violates the Second Modification.”

Decide Ramos acknowledged the Caetano ruling however disagreed that it implied stun gun bans are unconstitutional.

“The Caetano Court docket didn’t, nevertheless, conclusively decide, as a result of it was not required to, that stun weapons and tasers are in ‘widespread use,’” he wrote.

That burden, he mentioned, was on the plaintiffs on this case to indicate that stun weapons are each in “widespread use” in the present day and that they’re “sometimes possessed by law-abiding residents for lawful functions.” He concluded that the challengers of New York’s bans failed on that entrance.

“Right here, Plaintiffs haven’t supplied any research, studies, or knowledge for the Court docket to conduct a ‘statistical inquiry’ into whether or not stun weapons and tasers are in widespread use,” he wrote. “Plaintiffs don’t ‘even determine probably the most fundamental of statistics together with, for instance, the variety of stun weapons and/or tasers bought in the USA for any given 12 months.’”

He additionally dismissed Justice Alito’s earlier entry providing a stun gun possession estimate, stating that “a concurrence isn’t binding precedent.”

A spokesperson with the New York Metropolis Legislation Division informed The Reload that metropolis officals “are happy with the choice.”

The Second Modification Basis, joined by the Firearms Coverage Coalition, first sued New York over its ban in October 2021 on behalf of 4 New York Metropolis residents. The group mentioned in a social media assertion that its attorneys “are reviewing the disappointing opinion and strategizing subsequent steps.”

UPDATE 3-25-2025 4:30 PM EASTERN: This piece has been up to date to incorporate a remark from the New York Metropolis Legislation Division.