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.”
Charlie Kirk never got a chance to reconsider his stance “it is worth it for our freedom that we continue to tolerate the murder of innocent people by crazies every year”. If he had it to do over again, would he have chosen that policy?….or a more nuanced one where it’s harder for crazies to obtain firearms, but no harder for the sane and responsible?
Just because the left comes up with bonehead policies that whittle away at freedom, that shouldn’t make conservatives freeze in place and refuse to propose our own improvements to public safety. I miss Charlie and his influence. It was a huge loss for our nation and its youth. Let’s figure out a way — without involving government bureaucrats — to better supervise young males who are boiling over with angst and fantasize gaining power with firearms. An older adult sponsor who will be looking over his shoulder might be the way to keep our freedoms and reign in irresponsible gun use and senseless tragedies like Charlie’s.
“I am opposed to gun control, but . . . “
You already accept strict controls on machine guns and RPGs. So you’re not a 2A absolutist either. It’s always been about balancing freedom with responsibility – if the goal is an orderly society with personal freedom.
Did someone say that I accepted controls of machine guns and RPGs ?
For YOUR information – while private ownership of machine guns is very limited – there is no limit on the private ownership of gattling guns, cannon, howitzers or tanks.
The goal is the maximum of individual liberty short of anarchy and the freedom to actually harm others.
Yes there is a tension between freedom and govenrment – and while we do not go for absolute freedom. We do ABSOLUTELY make the burden of proving both the necessity of infringement on liberty, and the effectiveness of that infringement on GOVERNMENT.
Individuals need NOT justify their demand for liberty.
Government MUST prove the necessity of infringement, must PROVE the clear benefit of infringement and that the same end can not be accomplished without infringing on a right or by lessor infringement.
Those on the left CONSTANTLY try to invert the burden of proof.
Machine guns and RPGs are not restricted by the 2nd Amendment.
Social Security and Medicare et al. cannot be taxed for or funded and are utterly unconstitutional.
Secession is not prohibited and fully constitutional.
The judicial branch, including the Supreme Court, swears an oath to support the “manifest tenor” of the Constitution and Bill of Rights—the “Reconstruction Amendments” are unconstitutional, as were Lincoln’s denial of secession, Lincoln’s unconstitutional attack on a sovereign foreign nation, and his so-called “civil war.”
Every act of Lincoln and every effect of Lincoln’s “Reign of Terror” were unconstitutional and await constitutional judicial abrogation and rescission.
pbinca – public safety, the common good, myraids of other pleasant sounding words have ALWAYS been on the tongue of those who seek to steal our freedom.
While there is a great deal of evidence that we are ON NET better off – safer with the strongest protection of rights, including the 2nd amendment,
That is not relevant. A right is something that you are free to do even if it is NOT in the public interest.
EVERYTHING can be argued as benefiting public safety – the Nazi’s argued the extrermination of jews, gypsies, the handicapped and elderly was a public safety matter.
EVERYTHING can be argued as for the common good. It is pretty easy to argue that Slavery is for the common good.
Can we take away a persons freedom merely because we can come up with a pleasant sounding claim that the public would benefit ?
Js, you say a right is something we are free to do even if it’s not in the public interest. Do you have an example? Do you mean an individual’s right may harm the public interest? What of universality?
I’m unclear and enjoy your writings most of the time.
Kudos to Professor Turley for pointing out that “… 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….”
We are living in unprecedented times, where the Democrat Party decides to let anti-Semitic, Constitution-hating, Islamic jihadists use their Party to run for national offices that they can’t possibly win.
Similar to their obviously-unconstitutional attacks on firearms firmly establishing more gun rights, they are creating more Republican voters every time they brag about their “big tent” including Muslim terrorist lovers, like Mamdani, Al-Sayed and Piker.
Happy Rosh Hashanah 5787 📣📜✡️🎉
Rosh HaShanah 5787 / 1-2 Tishrei רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה 5787 📣📜✡️🎉
Rosh Hashanah 5787 begins at sundown on Friday, September 11, 2026, and concludes at nightfall on Sunday, September 13, 2026.
Holiday Details
Dates: September 11–13, 2026 (1st and 2nd of Tishrei, 5787).
Significance: Known as the Jewish New Year and the “birthday of the world,” commemorating the creation of humanity and marking the start of the High Holy Days (Yamim Nora’im).
Traditions: Sounding the shofar (ram’s horn) in the morning, eating apples dipped in honey and round challah, lighting candles, and engaging in prayer and personal reflection.
https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/7480776/jewish/6-Ways-This-Year-5787-Is-Unique.htm
I shall eat apples dipped in honey today. ☺
We have a habit of going from a Jules Verne novel to “Tranquility Bay here. The Eagle has landed.” This writer would not be surprised if we make the jump from a Star Trek phaser to an actual human held particle beam weapon. Meanwhile, States like New York and Illinois, and the District of Columbia have wanted to be a zit on the complexion of the Second Amendment, met by a SCOTUS Heller, McDonald and Bruen boundary that echoes the protections around the Indispensable Right, the First Amendment. Among those of the Bill of Rights that says these are the personal rights our our humanity that predate and prevail over what government is allowed to do. Heller makes room for a real phaser as Jonathan mentioned. Today’s case does not ask the Court about a yet nonexistent phaser. But we may get a decision that informs that issue.
What makes the gun issue complicated is the unintended result that criminals’ ability to obtain weapons are strengthened at the same time as law-abiding citizens rights are defended. There is an idea that goes directly to this quandary: require young gun owners to have an older-adult sponsor who agrees to be held responsible for any illegal use of the weapon. This would put gun safety out in the hands of the older, more mature citizenry — not in the hands of government officials. What responsible adult is going to sponsor a young thug involved in a criminal lifestyle? This effectively gives the police to confiscate street weapons from gangs, and would prevent anti-social young loners from obtaining their first gun. It answers the question “Who best to decide if a young person is responsible enough to own a firearm?” — an older adult who can loosely supervise the gun use. Meanwhile, responsible gun culture can be passed from middle-aged adults to young adults in an orderly fashion.
This would virtually end all young adult gun ownership. What older adult is going to pur their entire lifes work on the line for a kid to own a gun
One whose father guided him into safe gun culture, and who cares to pass the torch the same way.
So no one gets to own a firearm unless their father owned a firearm ?
“require young gun owners to have an older-adult sponsor…”
Utopian slop
In the state of Massachusetts, ownership of firearms is a privilege, not a right.
“I am opposed to gun control, but . . . “
Anonymous – children and young adults (as well as the mentally incapacitated) ALWAYS pose difficult questions regarding rights.
As to the “unintended consequence of gun control” = that is criminals with guns and ordinary people unable to defend themselves.
People who are willing to break the law are never stopped by laws. Murder is illegal everywhere – and yet murders still occur.
Laws do NOT constrain criminals. SOMETIMES the threat of punishment for violating them does.
It’s deterrents then, JS?
OT,
“Since it’s the 25th anniversary of 9/11, and since, for 25 years, we’ve been kept relatively safe from anything close to another 9/11, how about a hand for the Americans who made that happen? Because it didn’t just happen; there was a war on terror, and we won. And yet so much has changed since 9/11; for example, back then we were against the terrorists.”
— Bill Maher
Bill Maher Delivers A Brutal 9/11 Reality Check To The Left
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/bill-maher-delivers-brutal-911-reality-check-left
Note, in a video that was supposed to honor the dead from the terrorist attacks on 9-11, VA governor, Spamburger, did not use the word “terrorists.” Also of note, in the video standing next to her was VA secretary of public safety, Stanley Meador. He oversaw the FBI office that targeted Catholics as domestic terrorists.
What a chattering monkey you are. Try some original content you link ape.
I can tell a CCP bot when I see one. Americans don’t talk like that!
Oh! NO! Annony is upset that, once again, Bill Maher, a sane and normal liberal Democrat, is calling out the illiberal MSM for their idiocy.
How marvelous!
You seem vaccinated.
Where is the article?
If they ban the Glock 9mm how is Kamala Harris going to protect herself?
Shut up fool! The Queen gets to have a gun but no such protection is to be afforded to the peasants.
Have all the peasants gather up their guns and put them in the basket of the deplorables where they belong.
Case solved.
Don’t laugh Thinkitthrough, that is exactly what Dianne Feinstein did in San Francisco when she was Mayor. She was threatened and then she sought, and received, concealed carry permit for aa handgun. Mind you San Francisco denied the CCP to virtually every single person in the City. She was in fact one of just nine people who had a CCP in SF. Rules for thee but not for me.
Ditto. and you might add that aside from getting a Concealed Carry Weapon (CCW) license in California which is next to impossible, you would also deal with the registered as a “single shot” (single shot ‘Button’ equipped) weapon restrictions.
Expl.: https://www.placer.ca.gov/2400/Weapons
Great play on words! We’ve seen how well this is gone in places like England – cops can’t even do their jobs as well as thugs do theirs. They do not want us to be able to defend ourselves at all – and that is not due to their good intentions. Our founding documents have never been more important – we had better stand up for them. I promise thugs and politicians (I repeat myself) will still be packin’.
I hope that until the Supreme Court just refuses to waste time on hearing these types of cases, that these blue states will keep trying to press the issue and have all their claims thrown out.
SCOTUS routinely rejects cases if they agree with where lower courts have left it. This in itself is a type of case review.
I like others can only read the headlines. If we want to protect ourselves we better start by removing all the left wing activists prosecutors and judges. Put them all in prison and we all might be much safer? In the meantime I’ll carry a nondescript tactical weapon.
For some reason, as other commenters have noted, at this time the column text is not shown, only the comments. For those who have not seen reports of what is under discussion, here is an alternate source:
How a Street Brawl Led to a 5th Circuit Case That Casts Doubt on the Constitutionality of Many Federal Laws
https://reason.com/2026/09/11/how-a-street-brawl-led-to-a-5th-circuit-case-that-casts-doubt-on-the-constitutionality-of-many-federal-laws/
“Squire asked the full court to reconsider his case, pressing a claim that goes far beyond the question of whether a drug trafficking conviction justifies stripping someone of his Second Amendment rights: Squire argues that Congress had no constitutional authority to enact Section 922(g)(1), which criminalizes purely intrastate, noncommercial conduct under the pretense of regulating interstate commerce.
If the 5th Circuit agrees with Squire on that point, Judge Stephen Higginson warned in July, when the appeals court agreed to rehear the case, it will “have massive import for federal law,” undermining “much of the United States Code.” Although Higginson was alarmed by that possibility, it would be welcome news for critics who complain that the Commerce Clause has become an all-purpose license to legislate, in defiance of the principle that the federal government’s powers are limited to those explicitly granted by the Constitution.”
I welcome the opportunity for SCOTUS to ultimately revisit a significant source of facially unconstitutional Federal power. Unfortunately, I also see this as an opportunity for John Roberts to show his true colors and eff us over royally. I hope I m wrong about that. It appears that we are going to find out.
I wish the topic of unconstitutional spending would move to the foreground too.
The root of all evil is “Excessive Secrecy” used to justify authority not found in the U.S. Constitution. If an Inspector General or GAO wants to do their job – start there!
I am shocked…shocked I tell you!
Why is this a Second Amendment Case as it does not involve a “firearm”. It does pertain to the Right of Self Defense. Now the issue I see at hand is when it comes to Self Defense….what kind of arms are permissible. Do I have the Right to carry a Taser, Dirk, Sword, Machete, Axe, Pike, Dagger, Bowie Knife, 36 Inch Louisville Slugger Bat, Combat Walking Cane, Shotgun, Glock, Derringer, Revolver, Short Barreled Rifle, AR-10 or AR-15 or my Ex-Wife?
The Second Amendment is generally accepted to address Firearms and not the myriad of other devices that one can reasonably carry as not all instances of Self Defense require a firearm. How does the Supreme Court deal with the broad choice of such devices.
I am old school…I carry a nice pocket knife that opens itself upon demand….which becomes one means of defense but my preferred choice is a Model 43X Glock 9MM. Mssrs Smith and Wesson made all Men equal but Mr. Glock tilted the odds to the carrier’s advantage. Anyone that has had real experience in those kinds of human relationships where such accoutrements were used understands this…..if you know….you know.
The Supreme Court has the opportunity to address the Constitutional Carry Law that many States have adopted and further clarify its stand re Concealed Carry and other infringements of the Second Amendment.
As a former Law Enforcement Officer I understand the need for keeping guns out of the wrong hands but prefer only those who use them to illegally harm others be the target of those laws. An example….a convicted Felon cannot possess, hold, or even be in a room where there is a firearm….no hunting rifle…no concealed handgun….no handgun in the car….and in my view upon conviction for that possession should automatically receive a mandatory sentence of Ten Years without Parole or Probation.
One might gather where I stand re the soft on crime Democrat Agenda and its very flawed thinking that puts the innocent at grave risk and removes any repercussions for the violent who prey on defenseless victims.
“The Second Amendment is generally accepted to address Firearms and not the myriad of other devices…”
False. the term “arms” is generally accepted to mean “weapons.” A very broad term since many common objects can serve as weapons. It’s simply the case that the most common and visible legal battles are related to firearms.
I’ll stick with the all-steel, hammer-fired tools like the FN HP, CZ75, 1911, or PPK/s.
Dopey leftys want to take away your actual arms, as in right and left, so you can’t use THEM for defense. But I still got all my teeth!
I am attempting to read this story at 08:00 Sunday 13 August 2026. I can see the headline and comments, but not the article? Mr. Turley, please fix this!
I would love to read this, also, but I only see the headline – thank you!
August????? How did you get a month behind us?
Well, if the no prison crowd has its way then it seems only right that the citizen be armed. The ability to carry a stun gun gives the citizen the right to apply force that is commensurate with the threat and allows the citizen to make that judgment. Or we can simply allow all citizens to carry 9 mm , .357, .45 acp with hollow points so we can go for the max force right from the start. Preferably at High Noon. Or Tasers at dusk. Depends on your schedule.
Seems only right? Right as in a constructional right? Or your warped perception of reality?
“The ability to carry a stun gun gives the citizen the right to apply force that is commensurate with the threat ”
When violent felons are armed to the teeth with any kind of firearm they choose, in spite of the encyclopedic anti-firearms regulations in force in many jurisdictions, do you actually believe that a stun gun gives you commensurate force”. That is not only ludicrous, it is insane.
We have the right to self defense given us by our creator. This includes necessary weapons. We need no license or permit for this. I have no clue what you’re yammering on about.
Is it just a matter of time before the revolutionaries completely dismantle the Bill Of Rights? Not just the Second Amendment. All ten Amendments. Read the Memorandum Opinion dated December 16, 2013 in the lawsuit titled “Klayman v. Obama”, United States District Court For The District of Columbia, Civil Action No. 13-0851. In that Opinion, the judge ruled that the Obama administration so severely dismantled the Fourth Amendment that it was almost “Orwellian”, and he ruled that he had “little doubt that the author of our Constitution, James Madison, who cautioned us to beware ‘the abridgment of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power,’ would be aghast.” And let us not forget Joe Biden’s dismantling of the First Amendment with the Disinformation Governance Board. May God protect the Bill Of Rights from the revolutionaries.
Lay off the koolaid steve. Ever dawn on you that you’re crazier than your esteemed liberals.
The Disinformation Governance Board was dismantled in 2022. So I’m assuming the rest of your comment is a lie.
I’m receiving anonymous Replies that are name-calling (crazy, liar). I’m not receiving any Replies that deny the accuracy of the quotations from the Memorandum Opinion that I cited. I pray that everyone reads the Memorandum Opinion that I cited, because factual truth might clear the conversation for everyone (even the anonymous anyones).
Stephen B. Benisch, Esq.,
Ahhh, but facts are an anathema to the annony. He can only reply with his lower elevator level IQ comments.
However, you initial question is quite apt. It does in fact seem the so-called revolutionaries intent is to dismantle the Bill of Rights, the Constitution, the presidency, the Senate, pack the court, pass laws to ensure no one but them win elections.
One party rule.
Used to be a wild, tinfoil hat conspiracy theory.
Now, THEY say it themselves, out loud, and are proud to say it.
It is SCOTUS that preserves the foundational documents that define our individual liberty and security. That is why the Dems are so intent on packing it. It is the first step towards their dream of authoritarian single party rule. The DSA was not the first to voice that intent.
“. . . the logic of the First Circuit, which held that [stun guns] were *not in common use* at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment.” (JT, emphasis added)
It is hard to believe that federal judges can make such absurd arguments.
By the First’s “logic:”
Computers were “not in common use” at the time of 1A. The government *cannot* abridge your right to free expression if you’re standing on a street corner, or if you’re publishing a pamphlet using a hand-cranked printer. (Because those means of expression were in common use.) But the government can usurp 1A if you use a computer. (1A is gutted.)
Racks were “in common use,” but not lasers. So government *cannot* torture you on a rack. But it can with lasers. (8A is gutted.)
Hands were “in common use,” but not electronic equipment. So the government *cannot* conduct a warrantless search if the police use their hands. But they can search and seize whatever they want if they use an electronic device. (4A is gutted.)
It is by such non-thinking and piecemeal compromises that citizens become rightless serfs.
It is hard to believe that federal judges can make such absurd arguments. Says the fool who isn’t a lawyer or even able to spell the word.
It always amusing to read such stupid and bizarre comments. Keep us smiling sam!
This blog is a monument to free speech. Your comments are the pigeon poop.
Diogenes,
Pigeons are smarter than the annony. They also have a purpose in life. The annony, not so much.
That birdbrain keeps pecking at his keys on this blog, so you must be right.
@Sam
Indeed, good comment. Then again, the modern left honestly consider themselves to be aristocracy – rightless serfs are precisely what they want us to be, they already view us that way, and it is by design. It is definitely NOT a conspiracy theory. Out of touch crusties that still think they are voting for JFK or Clinton think they’ll be spared for their blind allegiance (they won’t be). Young radicals are too stupid to know any better (also an advantage to the upper echelons).
We’ve said it all before and need to keep saying it.
Thanks, James.
Sam,
Well said.
By their “logic” we should still be riding around in buggies pulled by horses, and using leeches to cure the common cold.
Then again, they also think biological men should be allowed in women’s spaces and in women’s sports.
Thanks, UF.
Letitia say ‘she not respondin to no Damn Supremist’ BAH HAHA.
No one cares what that over sized witch thinks.
“Calce has the makings of a truly stunning Second Amendment case in extending protections to electronic arms.”
A stunning pun intended.