From the Second Amendment Foundation . . .
The Second Amendment Foundation has filed a federal lawsuit challenging New York state and municipal laws prohibiting private citizens from possessing and using stun guns and tasers, noting in its complaint, “Most courts have found that bans on stun guns and tasers violate the Second Amendment and are unconstitutional.”
Joining SAF are the Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc., and three private citizens, Nunzio Calce, Shaya Greenfield and Raymond Pezzoli. The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Plaintiffs are represented by attorney David Jensen of Beacon, N.Y. The case is known as Calce, et.al. v. City of New York, et. al.
Named as defendants are the City of New York and Police Commissioner Dermot Shea.
“As we explain in our complaint, states and localities have some ability to regulate the keeping and bearing of arms,” noted SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “However, the Second Amendment prevents states and localities from flatly prohibiting law-abiding citizens from keeping bearable arms, and particularly arms that are in common use for the purpose of self-defense.”
As noted in the 10-page federal complaint, all four of the individual citizens participating in this legal action reside in neighborhoods within the City of New York.
“New York City has traditionally labored to keep its honest citizens defenseless,” Gottlieb observed, “with its extremist gun control laws and by enforcing a prohibition on non-lethal defensive weapons as well. What are people to do when they are prevented by the government from having the tools necessary to fight back against violent attackers?
“After all,” he added, “it is bad enough for citizens to face having to fight criminals, but it is worse when they have to fight their own government just to exercise their right of self-defense. Good people should not fear being prosecuted for simply having a defensive tool for personal protection. But the law does not allow it, and this must be challenged.”
Absolutely SHOCKING…!!!
LOL
I hope they’re going to sue New Jersey, too,
because New Jersey also bans law-abiding citizens from carrying guns, stun guns, tasers, batons, knives, and all other forms of self defense (with the sole exception of less than 3/4 ounce of pepper spray, which is the only weapon permitted to law-abiding citizens).
But nobody cares about us in New Jersey.
I’d be better off moving to New York City — at least they get noticed by the SAF and FPC and get some attention and respect.
Stuck,
Join us here in PA, instead! I left NJ 30 years ago; one of my best ever decisions. Just stay far, far, far from Philadelphia.
NJ2AS v. Porrino already overturned the Jersey stun gun ban in 2017. Caetano already said stun guns are covered by 2A. This should be a relatively easy win.
Stuck in New Jersey,
I care about everyone. The simple fact of the matter is that I cannot do anything about New Jersey when a large majority (supermajority?) of New Jersey residents support the garbage policies/laws in your state.
For that matter I would argue that no one can do anything about New Jersey when a large majority (supermajority?) of New Jersey residents support New Jersey’s garbage policies/laws. Clearly, the residents are New Jersey are not going to demand changes when they already have what they want. And why should another state tell New Jersey what to do.
As much as the policies/laws in New Jersey suck (and suck royally at that), the good news is that New Jersey is not forcibly holding you hostage and you can move away any time. Why not take advantage of that golden opportunity?
What don’t they understand about “Shall not be infringed.”!
Surprised it’s taken this long. The courts are a lot more receptive to challenges to taser laws than guns. Makes sense, the government can claim interest in stopping drive-by and mass shootings with guns but when is the last time you heard about a private citizen killing people with a taser\CED\stungun\whatever?
Sure, you can mug people with it. But you can do that with anything.
“New York City has traditionally labored to keep its honest citizens defenseless,” Gottlieb observed …
Of course: the more feeble and helpless the citizenry is, the more they call on government to take care of them.
Saying it another way, feeble and helpless citizens strengthens job security for politicians and government employees.
they were already sued, and federal judge David Heard kicked out the ban in 2019. so this new case is confusing. un less they decided to violate the judge”s order and make up their own laws, but NY would NEVER do that, right?
I really appreciate this wonderful post that you have provided for us. I feel strongly that love and read more on this topic. I have spent a lot of my spare time reading your content. Thank you a lot.