While I won't say that everyone believes you have a right to self-defense, most of the vocal anti-gunners will at least claim that you do. They say they're not trying to stop you from protecting yourself, you see, but they're all experts on self-defense, apparently, and what you need and don't need for the task, and you don't need more than a certain amount of ammo, don't need certain weapons, and don't need anything but a certain group of products that they're also trying to restrict.
Luckily, there are less lethal options like stun guns, right?
Well, New York City banned them. They don't want you walking around the city with a gun to protect yourself, but they don't want you using a less lethal option that's been around for decades without issue in most of the country.
Now, the Second Amendment Foundation is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to take up its case challenging the Big Apple's ban.
From a press release:
The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and its partners 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 SAF in Calce v. City of New York are five individuals and the Firearms Policy Coalition.
“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,” said 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.
“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 M. 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 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.”
Let's also remember that NYC has a long history of trying to restrict knives as well. In other words, you totally have the right to defend yourself; you just can't carry any tools that might aid you in defending yourself. Hell, they even restrict pepper spray like it was a gun. There's even a capacity limit, for crying out loud.
But at least you can carry pepper spray. If you're over 18--because younger teens are never the target of violent assaults, apparently--and aren't a convicted felon. Because a felon might use pepper spray on someone, and not the gun they'd buy illegally, to commit a crime.
In other words, you have the right to defend yourself if you're the next Chuck Norris, Bruce Lee, or some sort of ninja who is also bulletproof. Otherwise, it sucks to be you. Oh, and you'd have to be naturally bulletproof, because the state banned body armor.
So yeah, the Supreme Court needs to take up this case. They need to slap the ban down and slap it down hard, because not everyone is prepared to take a life, and I can respect that, but everyone should have access to the arms they believe are the best options for them to use for self-defense. It shouldn't be up to the city, state, or federal authorities to pass judgment on that.
Should the Court take up the case, I think we all know how that's going to go. The problem is that there's no guarantee that they will, and that's an issue.
Editor’s Note: President Trump and Republicans across the country are doing everything they can to protect our Second Amendment rights and right to self-defense.
Help us continue to report on their efforts and legislative successes. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member