Attorneys representing the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and its partners have filed a reply brief with the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in a lawsuit challenging the ban on electronic arms in New York City.
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 SAF in Calce v. City of New York are five individuals and the Firearms Policy Coalition.
“Courts all over the country have struck down bans just like this one as plainly unconstitutional,” said SAF Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack. “But the District Court in this case found a way to uphold New York City’s ban by improperly placing the ‘common use’ part of the analysis in the plain text portion of the test. This error not only ignores express instructions to the contrary from the Supreme Court but also shifts the burden from the government to prove their ban is constitutional, to the Plaintiffs themselves to prove their arms are protected. That is not the law, and appeal to the Second Circuit aims to correct these errors.”
As noted in the brief, “The City’s defense of the decision…fundamentally is built on a misunderstanding of where the ‘common use’ principle established by Heller, fits into the Court’s clarification and elaboration of Heller’s methodology in Bruen.”
“The City’s position here would be laughable if it weren’t so frustrating and people’s safety wasn’t at risk,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “Their argument fundamentally is that electronic arms like tasers are so ‘unusually dangerous’ that they aren’t even ‘arms’ as contemplated by the Second Amendment, and the legal analysis they propose to arrive at that conclusion is just plain wrong.”
