Blue State Gives Supreme Court Silent Treatment In Case Involving Stun Gun Ban

Attorneys representing New York City declined to respond to a petition to the Supreme Court in a case involving the city’s ban on stun guns on Thursday.

In a form filed with the Supreme Court of the United States, the New York City Law Department waived its right to respond to the petition of Nunzio Calce for a writ of certiorari, in which the court would agree to hear the case. In July, the Second Amendment Foundation asked the high court to hear the case, citing Caetano v. Massachusetts, in which a unanimous Supreme Court shot down Massachusetts’ ban on stun guns.

“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 its petition. “The decision below similarly flouted this Court’s precedent to reject a challenge to a ban on stun guns.”

“It’s pretty normal. SCOTUS will request a response if they are interested,” SAF Director of Legal Research and Education Konstadinos Moros told the Daily Caller News Foundation. The New York City Law Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment from the DCNF.

In his opinion concurring with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Caetano, 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.”

The Supreme Court agreed to hear Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins, cases involving bans on modern semiautomatic firearms, on June 30, consolidating them for a fall hearing.