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.”
#. 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
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!!
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!!
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.
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.
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.
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?
With respect to arms that enable rebellion against oppressive governments, if the government may keep and bear them, so may the people.