Published July 8, 2026 at 6:29 PM ET · Updated July 8, 2026 at 8:47 PM ET
Gun rights group urges Supreme Court to take up NYC stun gun ban
1 independent outlets are covering this story. Verification: Watching — single-source — not yet independently corroborated. Patriot Watch links to original reporting; we don't republish it.
A gun rights group is urging the Supreme Court to take up a case involving New York City's ban on stun guns. The petition asks the justices to review the legality of the city's prohibition on the devices.
Patriot Watch first flagged this story 3 hr ago, when Bearing Arms reported it. So far this remains a single-source report. The most recent report came 3 hr ago from Bearing Arms. Verification tier: Watching — single-source — not yet independently corroborated.
⚖ The Constitutional Angle
Caetano v. Massachusetts held that the Second Amendment covers all bearable arms, including weapons not in existence at the founding, so stun guns are not excluded for being modern. Under Bruen, New York City must justify its ban by pointing to a historical tradition of regulating comparable arms. Whether the city can meet that burden is what the Court would decide if it takes the case.
Jaime Caetano v. Massachusetts 577 U.S. 411 (2016)
Vote: Unanimous per curiam (8-member Court, post-Scalia); no recorded vote split · Opinion: Per curiam (unsigned)
Summarily vacating the SJC's judgment without briefing on the merits or oral argument, the Court held that each of the SJC's three rationales contradicted Heller: the Second Amendment extends prima facie to all bearable arms, including those not in existence at the founding; 'unusual' cannot be equated with 'not in common use in 1789'; and protection is not limited to weapons useful in warfare. The case was remanded for further proceedings; the Court did not itself hold the Massachusetts ban unconstitutional.
New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Kevin P. Bruen, Superintendent of New York State Police 597 U.S. 1 (2022)
Vote: 6-3 · Opinion: Thomas
New York's requirement that applicants demonstrate 'proper cause' — a special need for self-protection distinguishable from the general community — to obtain an unrestricted public-carry license violates the Fourteenth Amendment by preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms in public. The Court held the Second Amendment protects a right to carry handguns publicly for self-defense, and rejected the two-step means-end framework lower courts had applied after Heller.
Precedent facts from the PW Law Library — primary-source verified & independently audited
