One of the cases that I have been following as we approach the October term of the Supreme Court is Calce v. New York, a case challenging New York’s ban on stun guns. While it is important not to overplay the significance of the order, some justices clearly want to hear more on the case before deciding whether to grant a writ of certiorari for review. New York City was just ordered to file a response to the petition. With the two other major Second Amendment cases on the docket, a review in Calce could be one of the most impactful Second Amendment terms in decades.
Calce is a challenge brought by the Firearms Policy Coalition, Second Amendment Foundation, and individual plaintiffs against New York City’s ban on stun guns. They argue that “electronic arms” like stun guns and lasers are protected under the Second Amendment. The only difference is that, rather than a projectile, such weapons “work by producing electrical pulses that make the target’s muscles spasm, and thus quickly but temporarily disable him.”
Notably, nine years ago, the Court issued a per curiam opinion in Caetano v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts that sent back a case to the First Circuit that challenged a similar ban. The Court rejected the logic of the First Circuit, which held that they were not in common use at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment. The Court pointed out that in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 582 (2008), it expressly rejected that argument and held that the Second Amendment “extends . . . to . . . arms . . . that were not in existence at the time of the founding.” It also rejected two other rationales.
Massachusetts responded to the loss by changing its law. In so doing, Massachusetts shows a modicum of strategic sense to avoid another likely loss. However, New York City (as usual) was undeterred.
Notably, the district court judge and the Second Circuit upheld the ban on the ground that the challengers failed to “provide any evidence that stun guns and tasers are in common use.” That seems strikingly close to Caetano.
Calce could clarify not only the “common use” element but also the burden on challengers in such cases. The Second Circuit seems to have departed from the guidance of last year’s decision in Wolford v. Lopez, rejecting Hawaii’s “Vampire law” limiting areas where lawful weapons could be carried in the state without prior approval.
New York City must now respond by October 8, and the Court could decide on review at the October 15 conference.
If granted, the case would join an already weighty Second Amendment docket. The Court will be hearing arguments in Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins. Both cases will address the move in various blue states to ban AR-15 and other semi-automatic weapons, including the popular Glock 9mm. The addition of Calce would make this a formidable Second Amendment term.
These cases also show how the same blue jurisdictions continue to feed the Court with Second Amendment cases that will likely only reinforce the rights that they are seeking to limit. I have previously written how New York, D.C., and Chicago are examples of Democratic cities that routinely commit lasting self-inflicted wounds to gun control efforts with poorly conceived and poorly drafted measures.
Calce has the makings of a truly stunning Second Amendment case in extending protections to electronic arms.
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the New York Times best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”
…bear arms… means that you can stand to go to the local tavern.
Cheers!
Why is there no article today?
Never Forget: President Trump Leads the Nation in Solemn 25th Anniversary Remembrance of September 11, Announces $5,000 Trump Dividend for Every American Adult, Working Families Obamacare Refunds Delivered, Canada’s Trade Retaliation Answered, and Veterans Benefits Accelerated
This week, the nation paused to honor the 25th anniversary of September 11, 2001 — and President Trump led that remembrance with the gravity it deserves. On September 8, the President participated in the Steel Across America ceremony at the White House, honoring the nearly 3,000 Americans murdered on that morning and the first responders, military members, and intelligence officers who answered the call in the years that followed. On September 9, he signed the Patriot Day 2026 Proclamation, renewing the national vow to Never Forget. And on September 11 itself, the President honored the 9/11 heroes and reaffirmed America’s commitment to the families who lost everything that day.
On September 10, President Trump announced the Trump Dividend — a $5,000 payment for every American adult, made possible by the trillions of dollars in economic development, investment, and new manufacturing activity flowing into the United States under his second term. The announcement framed the dividend as the direct return to the American people of the wealth being created by the America First economic agenda — the same agenda Democrats said was impossible. As the President noted, they also said the Big Beautiful Bill couldn’t pass and the $1,776 military bonus couldn’t happen. Both did. The Dividend will too.
Also on September 10, the administration announced the Working Families Obamacare Refunds — returning money to hardworking Americans who were overcharged under the previous healthcare system. The refunds represent a direct financial benefit to middle-class families who bore the cost of Obamacare’s broken promises for over a decade.
Canada chose this week to retaliate against American trade policy — and the Trump administration answered immediately. On September 8, the President issued a proclamation modifying the scope of additional duties on Canadian motor vehicle products, directly targeting the discriminatory trade practices Canada has used against American manufacturers. The administration’s position is unambiguous: any retaliation against the United States will be met with a proportional and escalating response.
This week the administration moved to dramatically accelerate veterans’ access to benefits and employment opportunities, cutting through the bureaucratic backlog at the VA that had kept earned benefits out of the hands of those who served. An exclusive Daily Caller report detailed the administration’s aggressive action to clear the backlog and root out fraud — a direct fulfillment of President Trump’s promise that no veteran will be left waiting for what they have earned.
On September 9, the White House released a comprehensive accounting of President Trump’s historic results in under two years — covering job creation, investment secured, drug pricing, border enforcement, energy dominance, and military strength. First Lady Melania Trump also unveiled her personal vision to preserve America’s story through superior design, a formal initiative to elevate the architectural and aesthetic heritage of the nation through the spaces and structures that represent America to the world.
President Trump signed five pieces of legislation into law this week, including four House bills and S. 858, extending the reach of this administration’s legislative accomplishments. The President also extended warm wishes to Jewish Americans marking Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish New Year. In manufacturing news, Sapporo announced it is moving its beer production from Canada to the United States in response to tariffs, and L3Harris received a landmark PAC-3 MSE propulsion contract to support the Arsenal of Freedom — yet more evidence that the Trump trade and defense agenda is creating American jobs and strengthening the industrial base.
Right now Trump is doing his very best to break up NATO. While signaling to Putin that’s it’s fine to level Kiev. Only the creepiest of losers think Trump is great.
Putin was winning this war in 2024 He is now losing.
Why ?
Might be because Russia’s source for 40% of their munitions – Iran is not shipping munitions to Russia.
NATO is not breaking up.
But the US role in NATO is properly diminishing.
It should have become self evident since the moment Putin invaded Ukraine – that Europe is capable of defending itself against Russia.
This year is the 25th anniversary of America denying why Osama bin Laden declared war on the US
Osama didn’t declare war on the US. Islam did. And they did it long long ago.
The sooner we understand that the sooner we might actual be able to win.
Tell us why, and then tell us why they declared war on other people throughout history.
Charles Martel: The Battle of Tours
John Sobieski: The Siege of Vienna
Book recommendation: The Gates of Vienna
When you learn your bit of history, we will let you delete your post
Hey Anonymous, it looks like you are just another irredeemable Trump hater who is drinking the Kool Aid of the clueless far left nut jobs. Instead of hating on one the greatest Presidents in history, spend that time doing something worthwhile. Liberalism truly is a mental disorder
What if a constitutional amendment is found to be unconstitutional?
The idea of the Constitution violating itself seems like an impossibility. But if you have an example and can explain why it can happen, I’d be interested to hear about it.
Can’t happen.
It can happen, in one of two ways.
1. The amendment is found not to have validly passed, e.g. see the various claims that the 16th amendment was never actually ratified by the required number of states, and that the secretary of state simply lied about it. Current doctrine is that the courts must accept the secretary of state’s word as gospel and as the law, and must not inquire into whether he’s telling the truth. But a future court may challenge that.
2. An amendment to reform the senate, and end the states’ automatic equal representation, would be unconstitutional unless it was preceded by another amendment removing that restriction on amendments.
Trump has done things to violate the Constitution.
such as ?
Attempting to overrule birthright citizenship with an Executive Order.
You people keep saying that but it’s false, because executive orders can’t do that. He set up a test case to get before SCOTUS for a decision on an ambiguous phrase of the 14th amendment. SCOTUS ruled against him 5-4, which is proof his interpretation was not unreasonable even though it didn’t ultimately win. Unlike Biden, Trump never says he’s going to disobey the Supreme Court.
Biden never said that either.
That’s silly.
Are any of you in Mali?
As noted earlier, a stun gun could be the perfect tool for rapists. A fiend could stun a woman on the street, then jerk her into an alley. Or stun her on the subway!
And speaking of subways, riders could be stunned and pushed onto tracks. Even big, strong mrn could be stunned from behind by a pick-pocketer. The possibilities are endless in terms of violent mischief.
To frame this as a ‘constitutional debate’ is a slap in the face to law enforcement. No cop worthy of his badge wants to let some creep keep a stun gun that’s obviously intended for evil use.
“As noted earlier, [duct tape] could be the perfect tool for rapists.”
“As noted earlier, [zip ties] could be the perfect tool for rapists.”
“As noted earlier, [social media] could be the perfect tool for rapists.”
Want to also make it a crime for law abiding citizens to own and use them?
Sam above and Old Man below are both Estovir. And one post further down Estovir is Michael Crognale.
This kind of argument addresses whether legislation is helpful, when the issue is whether the legislation is valid (constitutional). It also says it’s a slap in the face to even question whether a law is constitutional. I guess maybe that’s true if the US Constitution is not a thing, and whatever cops “want” should be permitted, which seems to be where the anonny starts from.
And all of that is putting aside the questionable assumption built into the argument that rapists and fiends are law abiding citizens who will decide not to carry a stun gun if doing so is illegal.
#WeAreEstovir
Yes. A stun gun may become an object of wrong-doing and will.
/s
“a stun gun could be the perfect tool for rapists. A fiend could stun a woman on the street, then jerk her into an alley. Or stun her on the subway! ”
Any woman who is out and about in situations where a rape attempt is a significant probability owes it to herself to be carrying at least a 9mm semi-auto handgun with a >= 10 round mag loaded. If the 9mm provides more recoil than she can handle, a decent .380 can serve as a reasonable substitute.
If there were true Constitutional justices on SCOTUS they would have declared all gun laws null and void with either Brien or Heller. Unfortunately we don’t have such. Thus we suffer the consequences with the traitors working endlessly to nullify the 2nd Amendment. And for you “anonymous” morons, spare us the bullschiff arguments.
Estivor, views like this are crazier than anything the DSA has ever proposed. You’re just using this Crognale name to put out a fringe talking point while linking yourself to the Constitution. And again, this why certain liberals want to pack the court. To make sure this court doesn’t listen to people like you.
The second amendment says ‘right to bear arms’ not right to bear only ‘firearms’ so it encompasses other arms, like knives, swords, bows and arrows, traumatic guns that use CO2, and stun guns. The second amendment species no time frame or popularity of the arm. Shall not infringe applies here.
#. Police use tasers? Do they have stun guns? The police also have back up 9s and shotguns? So this is in the general population category. Another implement of torture perhaps some depressed mother will find a use.
Adieu, good cheer one and all
Ban exercise bands, mothers don’t kill kids, exercise bands kill kids. Exercise band manufacturers need to be held criminally liable. (sarc).
Liberal logic.
I can think of all kinds of kitchen items you could torture someone with. A wooden spoon, a metal spatula, a meat tenderizer hammer. An electric or gas burner. A knife. A meat cleaver. Vinegar. A cheese grater. I’m sure an evil person could come up with many more inventive ways. It’s not the instrument of torture it’s the person doing the torturing that is evil and should be liable and held accountable.
“I can think of . . .”
Exactly.
There isn’t a tool in human existence that can’t be used by a rotten person to do rotten things. The best source for that list is Agatha Christie.
No subject is evident and no article appears on this site.
ICYMI-Y(esterday)
“[Racial separation] [is necessary], and [though difficult] must be effected by colonization… The enterprise is a difficult one, but ‘where there is a will there is a way’; and what colonization needs most is a hearty will… Let us be brought to believe it is morally right, and at the same time [not against] our interest, to transfer the African to his native clime, and we shall find a way to do it.”
– Abraham Lincoln, Springfield, Illinois, June 26, 1857 (Adapted)
______________________________________________________________________
Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1798, 1802 (four iterations for maximum clarity)
United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” March 26, 1790
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof….
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Lincoln threw the baby out with the bathwater. The American freedom of its Founders persisted for a mere 71 years. Lincoln destroyed constitutional American freedom to abolish reprehensible slavery. All Lincoln ever had to do was pass legislation in Congress to make slavery illegal. Lincoln didn’t like the legal process; he chose the criminal process and started killing Americans. Secession was and is not prohibited and is fully constitutional. Everything Lincoln did subsequent to his unconstitutional denial of secession was similarly unconstitutional. Lincoln began the destruction of the Constitution, clearing the path to the unconstitutional communist welfare state America suffers today. Lincoln was the most prodigious and corrupt criminal in American history.
LDS – Lincoln Derangement Syndrome weekly from ANON!! LAME ANON!!
LDS; I thought I coined that term but good for you! beat me to it! Pretty sure this guy is just an angry civil war ghost tho because he’s invisible (anonymous), & he only has the ability to repeat the same gruesome haunting messages while being harmless and powerless in our realm.
Go towards the light civil war ghost!
just remember I coined that term for him ok?
I used LDS for a long time!!
The LDS do have an impressive choir and they sing beautifully.
Fitting words given our current events
TERM COINER EXTRAORDINAIRE!
But can you comprehend that this jack— lincoln ended the American constitutional freedom that the American Founders established and that America ended with stinkin’ lincoln?
That the American Founders established citizens who were “free white person(s)” by duly legislated statute?
Do you understand that this is not America but MexAfricAsiArabia and that the individual freedom of Americans is long gone and that global communism rules America?
What would the United States of America be like if its fundamental law were only the Constitution and Bill of Rights of 1789 without extraneous and reprehensible slavery?
No communist welfare state, simply individual freedom with infinitesimal governance.
Sundays..
At Res Ispa Loquitur:
It’s The Estovir Marathon!
The man of a thousand puppets goes unchallenged every Sunday. It’s all Estovir all day long!
A continuous sense of deja vu awaits the randem reader. Hear the sound of one hand clapping in post after post.
Names keep changing but the signature remains; a simple southerner appealing to like minds.
No shades of gray. Nothing complicated. It’s only Estovir for only core MAGA.
MORON ANON ALL DAY LONG 7 DAYS A WEEK
Estovir snaps back as ‘Kirk’!
PROOF ANON IS A MORON!!
The sound of one hand clapping is-silence. Use it Amitabh.
OT:
Republicans cast Muslim Democrats as chief enemies in ‘dangerous’ midterm pitch
Raqib Naik, the executive director of the Center for the Study of Organized Hate (CSOH), said the rhetoric “legitimizes” prejudice and hate against Muslim communities……“The danger here is that this rhetoric could translate into violence,” he said.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/6085055-gop-cruz-muslim-democrats-midterms/
When rhetoric by Democrats / Leftist / DSA / militant Muslims could translate into violence against Jews, Catholics, women, children, Republicans, conservative leaders, et al, the legacy media justifies it, e.g. assassination of Charle Kirk.
Meanwhile Nike is collapsing as a corporation because they went woke and lost the confidence of women.
Nike Stock Fell 78% And S&P 100 Exit May Mark Capitulation
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jimosman/2026/09/06/nike-stock-fell-78-and-sp-100-exit-may-mark-capitulation/
The Left will never stop their threats to American Democracy™ until one can stick a fork in them when they’re done.
Dangerous? I’m not sure why it’s dangerous. Maybe we should ask the women of Europe how they feel about Muslim danger… I bet, except for the most die-hard liberal, they wish Merkel and the other libs wouldn’t unleashed them on Europe.
Rapes in England & Wales went from 8.593 in 2000 to 68,109 in 2023l
Rapes in Germany went from 8,133 in 2000 in 2000 to 39,029 in 2023!
Rapes in France went from 7,500 in 2000 to 40,200 in 2023!
Poland, OTOH, keeps them out. Liberals call them racists, but Poland recognizes they’re not compatible with their culture or rule of law.
Rapes in Poland DECLINED from 2,399 in 2000 to 1,127 in 2023.
You can ask away, but will they feel safe enough to answer truthfully? In many parts, its actually illegal to respond correctly.
Moses, thanks for the numbers. If their stock prices increased, like their rapes, their economy would be golden. They are dying nations the left wishes to emulate.
Imo, Kirk was murdered because of his beliefs, a specific type of Christian beliefs. Kirk’s beliefs are characterized as moral beliefs. Robinson nullified US and state homicide laws.
Islam also has beliefs about morality. As long as those beliefs are consistent with American laws, legal, there shouldn’t be a problem?
Charlie was murdered not for his beliefs but because he was stunningly effective, articulate, and convincing – at explaining them. Plus, he always showed up deeply prepared (even without the imprimatur of a university education, or possibly because of the lack of a wasted four-year $200k+ intellectual desert).
annemalcolm
Excellent !
I would emphasize that Kirk was likely murdered – and DEFINITELY HATED BECAUSE he did not have a university education AND he was effective.
Disagree 👎. It was his beliefs.
His beliefs were/are not revolutionary. Most agree, but he was so good at convincing others, especially the young, of his positions. That articulation rendered him a dangerous threat.
Exactly so. The threat he represented went deeper than politics. His effectiveness and intelligence threatened the Left’s very identity as the supposedly smarter ones because they went to college and learned Marxist slogans and dogma. He was supposed to be from the great unwashed basket of deplorables but he outshone them, so he had to be put to death. In that he had much in common with his savior into whose presence he was ushered.
#WeAreEstovir
What’s your evidence?
My dear Anne, the belief remains revolutionary.
I’d agree if you mean Kirk utilized 1A and speech as a rational argument.
I’m not a fan of dogma btw. I’m always suspicious when I see anagrams- amgod.
And, Robinson murdered Kirk for personal reasons. Robinson’s amor was a transexual. Kirk preached aka utilized speech, that transexual doesn’t exist and other such. Robinson nullified law regarding speech to murder. Robinson did not nullify Kirk’s belief. Obviously if Kirk had used speech, preaching, extolling lgbt , Kirk would be alive.
Overall lgbt are fighting people sending them to h€ll. Wouldn’t you?
Islam has a system called Sharia law which is Unconstitutional by definition, Any law in the USA must Comply with the Constitution and Sharia Law does not. Sharia Law therefore is illegal because it is unconstitutional.
Interesting isn’t it as a judge just went bonkers at Clancy’s trial when Dr. Kirk was asked about her religious beliefs and the go to God, I think? 🤔
You’ll need to make a reasonable argument about monogamy, cousin marriage, age for marriage and not a moral argument, Sharia, oh and some other beliefs. 🤔
I agree, anon. It’s a political system of Kings and Princes? The government cannot be annointed by divine rule in the US? Islam is a political system. Will it change the US culture? Do you think the founders knew that?
The founders certainly knew about Islam, and were clear that the USA was to be just as hospitable to Islam as it was to the various kinds of Christianity.
In their days the serious theocratic threat was from the Roman Church, not from Islam. And yet they were clear that Catholicism would have the same rights as all religions.
Islam has a system called Sharia law which is Unconstitutional by definition, Any law in the USA must Comply with the Constitution and Sharia Law does not. Sharia Law therefore is illegal because it is unconstitutional.
That is utterly ridiculous. The Catholic and Jewish religions also have their own legal systems. No one in his right mind has ever claimed that Canon law or halacha are illegal, or that they’re subject to the US constitution. On the contrary the first amendment protects them from interference by the government, and the exact same thing is true of sharia law. Only governments are subject to the US constitution. Private entities are not.
Milhouse: Sharia Law means the supremacy of Islamic law over secular law.
My only quibble is I hate the word “impactful,” which has only existed for a few decades and sounds awkward and dumb. Why not say meaningful, substantial, or significant?
Stun guns might be the perfect tool for rapists and muggers. And I’m sure New York authorities are concerned by that possibility. So New York doesn’t need small town Whites, from out of the region, trying to shape their policies.
Please explain the racial and regional hatreds that inflame your attitudes toward “small town whites.”
Estovir, why should small town White conservatives have ‘any’ say over the policies of New York City???
New Yorkers know what’s best for New York City. They don’t need outsiders telling them their business.
ATS – because rights are protected regardless of who likes that or wishes to infringe on them.
In my humble opinion as an outside observer of NYC and the choices they make for leadership and representation, I would question they know what is best for their city, much less the country at large.
The US constitution is everyone’s business.
How do you explain my “big town” white attitudes, shaped mostly as a minority in Asia?
The Constitution applies in all US towns, large and small alike.
Estovir, every time dogmatic Trumpers like you try to tell us what the constitution allegedly says, it makes liberals more determined to pack the court.
I didn’t say what it says. I said where it applies. Read my comment again, this time for comprehension. Note: it is written in the English language.
So the US Constitution triggers you. Why am I not surprised?
Hmm, I wonder, would they oppose Pres. Trump packing the court, starting now?
ATS 0- everyone has got that – which is precisely why so many are so determined that you never get the oportunity to do so.
Listen to yourself ? If you do not like what the constitution says – amend the constitution. That is the only legitimate and moral way to attempt to undermine actual rights.
I have never heard a conservative try to tell the left what the constitution “allegedly” says.
What is says is right out their in black and white for everyone to see.
What the constitution says is NEVER the question. The text of the constitution is pretty mujch always crystal clear and absolute.
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
Not can be infringed sometimes, or if the legislature chooses.
But no constitutional right is absolute. The debate is NEVER over what the constitution SAYS,
The debate is ALWAYS over the extent to which the ABSOLUTE language of the constitution should be read is less than absolute.
That determination is NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION. The constitutions text is nearly always absolute.
Most of the time – and increasingly so, the right seeks to read the absolute constraints of the constitution as close to absolute as can be done and still have a working govenrment.
While those on the left seek to read the constitutions text as mere suggestions that are easily overcome by the will of the momentary majority of the legislature.
That is the difference between the right and left today.
But that was not always so. The strength of the protection of first amendment rights that we have today and that the modern left rails against is specifically because of the century plus long battle waged by those on the left to read the first amendment as near absolute as possible.
Both the left and the right have changed – on constitutional issues they have mostly switched sides.
With respect to arms that enable rebellion against oppressive governments, if the government may keep and bear them, so may the people.