Photo via Pixabay

The state of New York isn’t a friendly place for those who value their ability to defend themselves. The state has long been a proponent of banning anything that can be considered a weapon, although the Second Amendment explicitly says “right to keep and bear arms.” That also includes non-firearm weapons.

One example of how this translates into a distrust of citizens having the ability to defend themselves is a ban on less-lethal devices like stun guns.

However, Friday, a federal court overturned the stun gun ban.

Opponents to the ban aren’t quite celebrating right now, though. Instead, they’re gearing up for a fight they believe is coming with a legislature that they believe will try again.

However, Rochester lawyer specializing in Second Amendment cases says that he expects state lawmakers will come up with new restrictions that will hold up in court.

It doesn’t mean that New York can’t regulate to some degree,” says Bob Brenna, “and they invited the state to absolutely consider doing that, but the outright ban was absolutely against Second Amendment rights.”

In other words, expect more.

It’s telling, though. I mean, the fact that New York tried to outright ban stun guns is clear evidence of one inescapable fact: the state does not value an individual’s right to defend themselves from attack.

While it may pay some lip service to the right of self-defense, it also goes out of its way to make it virtually impossible for one to defend themselves with anything more than their bare hands.

Unfortunately, that kind of confrontation will almost always favor the aggressor.

Bad guys get to pick their targets. They’re often armed illegally, and even if they’re not, they still get to pick people smaller than them. Smaller generally denotes weaker. Yes, there are exceptions to that rule.

Because criminals pick their victims, those victims are in a tough spot to try to defend themselves from a violent attack.

Tools like stun guns allow those victims to not actually be victims. They can fight back with a less lethal alternative and escape the fight. In fact, stun guns should be the preferred tool for self-defense in anti-gun New York.

The fact that stun guns aren’t shows how much the life of a New Yorker matters to the folks in Albany. Simply put, they don’t.

Meanwhile, criminals are arming themselves with firearms, not stun guns. At the very least, they’re carrying knives or clubs. They’re not walking around unarmed. Let’s face it; they’re criminals. They don’t care what the law says.

If lawmakers are smart, they’ll let this one lie where it is. There’s no pressing need to regulate stun guns, so they’ll pretend it never happened and move on. If they’re particularly clever, they’ll then try to use the legality of stun guns to suggest an alternative to firearms when they push through more anti-Second Amendment regulations.

I doubt they’re smart enough for that. I also doubt New York gun owners are stupid enough to fall for that.

We’ll have to see how this shakes out.