The Second Amendment Foundation and Firearms Policy Coalition have filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in Calce v. City of New York, a case challenging New York City’s ban on electronic arms.
New York City flatly prohibits the possession of stun guns, despite their common nationwide use as a less-lethal option for self-defense chosen by hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Americans. Joining the two gun rights groups are five private citizens.
“This case has been ongoing for almost five years and it’s past time for a final resolution,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb. “To continue spending taxpayer dollars to fight such an absurd law is preposterous. Courts around the country have struck down electronic arms bans, but New York City has again insisted that the rules don’t apply to them. They’d rather fight tooth and nail over a senseless ban than to admit that electronic arms are certainly not ‘unusually dangerous.’
‘Residents of the city should have the option to choose the type of self-defense method they’d prefer, but lawmakers are hellbent on treating citizens like criminals simply for owning a stun gun,” he added.
“The fact that residents of New York City cannot decide for themselves if they’d like to use a stun gun or taser for self-defense borders on the ridiculous,” added SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “Prohibiting law-abiding, peaceable citizens from carrying non-lethal means of self-defense not only violates the Constitution but transparently communicates the real disdain York City lawmakers have for the residents they represent. How else can you morally or ethically justify banning these defensive tools?”
As noted in the petition, “This Court should grant review to clarify the standards that apply in arms ban cases and to establish that nonlethal, electronic arms are just as much arms under the Second Amendment as are firearms. The Second Amendment protects implements that can project a spectrum of force and is not limited to firearms exclusively.”
Elsewhere, the petition observes, “The Second Amendment enshrines a right to keep and bear arms free from the interference of the government, outside of narrow, long-recognized exceptions. It makes no more sense, in this context, to permit the government to ban whatever it wants and require rights holders to come to court and prove the arm they wish to possess is worth the protection, than it would to allow the government to place a prior restraint on publishing unless a writer can affirmatively prove his content is not defamatory or obscene.”
SAF, FPC and their fellow plaintiffs are represented by attorneys David H. Thompson, Peter A. Patterson and William V. Bergstrom with Cooper & Kirk in Washington, D.C.
