The Supreme Court has ordered New York City to defend its stun gun ban.
The city had tried to skip the homework.
After the Second Amendment Foundation and Firearms Policy Coalition asked the justices to take Calce v. New York City, the city’s law department waived its right to file a response, the Daily Caller reported.
The Court was not finished. It directed New York to answer the petition by Oct. 8.
A request for a response does not mean the justices will hear the case. It does mean at least some of them want a brief.
“Frankly we’ve been disappointed by New York City’s continued defense of its unconstitutional stun gun ban, and we’re hopeful that the Supreme Court takes up the issue,” SAF’s Bill Sack told the Daily Caller News Foundation.
Petitioners said the case is “Caetano 2.0.”
Is the Second Amendment absolute?
Yes: 100% (1 Votes)
No: 0% (0 Votes)
In Caetano v. Massachusetts, the Supreme Court in 2016 unanimously vacated a state ban on stun guns. The per curiam opinion repeated that the Second Amendment covers “bearable arms,” including weapons that did not exist in 1791.
Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, wrote that stun guns are widely owned for self-defense and that a categorical ban violates the Second Amendment.
New York still forbids civilian possession of stun guns and Tasers, including for people who hold carry permits, the groups say.
A 2019 order blocked the statewide ban. The city kept its own.
Plaintiff Nunzio Calce and others, including a woman the petition says displayed a stun gun while fending off an assault, argue that the Second Circuit demanded they prove electronic arms are “in common use” before the Second Amendment even applies.
They say that test contradicts Heller, Bruen, and Caetano.
Jonathan Turley noted the order and the 2016 stun-gun ruling. Interest on the Court, he wrote, is “obvious” as justices weigh other major gun cases this term.
In an interesting development, the Supreme Court has ordered New York to offer a defense to its stun gun ban in Calce v. New York. The Court previously held that the Second Amendment does not cover only weapons in existence at the time of ratification…
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) September 12, 2026
Democrat-run cities have spent years tightening rules on firearms and on less-lethal tools. Those same cities often post the highest rates of street crime and the lightest consequences for repeat violent offenders.
New York’s first move in Calce was silence. The Supreme Court declined to accept it.
A brief is now due. Whether the justices grant review comes later. The fight is over whether a nonlethal arm that the Court already addressed remains banned in the country’s largest city.
Advertise with The Western Journal and reach millions of highly engaged readers, while supporting our work. Advertise Today.
