The Supreme Court ordered New York City to respond to a petition seeking a writ of certiorari in a case challenging the city’s ban on stun guns.
The municipality had previously elected to give the Supreme Court no response after the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) asked the Supreme Court to hear Calce v. New York City, arguing that a federal appeals court failed to apply a ten-year-old decision by the high court. The Supreme Court requested New York City’s response to the petition by Oct.8 according to the case docket.
“Frankly we’ve been disappointed by New York City’s continued defense of its unconstitutional stun gun ban, and we’re hopeful that the Supreme Court takes up the issue,” SAF Senior Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “There’s also a likelihood that the outcome in our Viramontes and Grant assault weapons ban cases being argued this term will speak directly to this issue. The fact that the Court has requested a response from the city is a positive sign because any case the justices are sincerely considering needs to be fully briefed by both sides.”
The New York City Law Department informed the Supreme Court it would waive its right to respond to the petition in a form filed with the Supreme Court on Aug. 6. The court’s request indicated potential interest in hearing the case, SAF Director of Legal Research and Education Konstadinos Moros told the DCNF in August.
The Supreme Court ruled in Caetano v. Massachusetts that a ban on stun guns was unconstitutional on Second Amendment grounds in a unanimous per curiam (unsigned) ruling released on March 21, 2016. SAF referenced the 2016 decision at the opening of its petition for a writ of certiorari.
“This case essentially is Caetano 2.0. In Caetano v. Massachusetts, this Court summarily vacated a Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision denying Second Amendment protection to stun guns that blatantly ‘contradict[ed] this Court’s precedent,’” SAF said in the petition. “The decision below similarly flouted this Court’s precedent to reject a challenge to a ban on stun guns.”
In his opinion concurring with the Supreme Court’s ruling, Associate Justice Samuel Alito noted that “hundreds of thousands” of stun guns were sold across dozens of states.
“While less popular than handguns, stun guns are widely owned and accepted as a legitimate means of self-defense across the country,” Alito wrote. “Massachusetts’ categorical ban of such weapons therefore violates the Second Amendment.”
ANP is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program.
ANP Fundraiser: ‘Dangerous, Derogatory, Harmful, Unreliable!’Those are some of the exact words used by Google’s censors, aka 'Orwellian content police,' in describing many of our controversial stories. Stories later proven to be truthful and light years ahead of the mainstream media. But because we reported those 'inconvenient truths' they're trying to bankrupt ANP.
Checks or money orders made payable to Susan Duclos can be sent to:
10510 South Ave
Poland, OH. 44514
Anything at all at Amazon purchased after clicking this ANP link will allow ANP to make a bit of revenue, all of which will be used to keep ANP online and to keep a roof over our heads.
