**Another Day, Another Court Getting Second Amendment Jurisprudence Wrong**
Look, I've been selling self-defense tools for years, and stun guns and tasers are things my customers ask about. So when I heard that the Second Circuit Court of Appeals just upheld New York City's ban on these tools, I had to dig into the ruling. And folks, it's frustrating.
In *Calce v. New York City*, the Firearms Policy Coalition and Second Amendment Foundation made a solid legal challenge to the city's stun gun ban. But the court basically said "tough luck"—claiming plaintiffs didn't prove these weapons are in "common use." Here's the problem with that logic: how exactly are you supposed to prove widespread ownership of something that's banned in major cities like New York?
The plaintiffs cited figures showing over 4.7 million stun guns and tasers owned nationwide. That wasn't good enough. The court wants exact numbers—but here's the thing, these items aren't heavily regulated, so nobody's tracking sales that precisely.
The Supreme Court already weighed in on this in *Caetano v. Massachusetts* back in 2016. They made it crystal clear: the Second Amendment protects arms "even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding." SCOTUS also said we don't evaluate Second Amendment claims by asking if something was used in warfare or existed in 1791.
But the Second Circuit flipped the script. They started with the assumption that stun guns aren't protected, then put the burden on citizens to prove otherwise. That's backwards. Under *Heller*, all bearable arms are presumptively protected. The government should have to prove why they aren't.
This ruling will be appealed, and honestly, it needs to be. This is exactly the kind of judicial activism that erodes our Second Amendment rights—not just for guns, but for every tool we use to protect ourselves and our families.
The fight continues.