Calce v. City of New York
Response Requested · Due Nov 23No. 26-46
New York City and State bans on stun guns and Tasers — do challengers have to prove an arm is "in common use" before the government must justify a ban?
What a ruling could mean
- If the Court takes it and the challengers win: New York's stun gun and Taser bans would face a tougher test, and challengers would not have to prove "common use" first. That rule could also matter in the rifle and magazine cases.
- If the Court takes it and New York wins, or declines to hear it: The bans stay, and challengers must show an arm is in common use before the government has to justify a ban.
Where things stand
On April 13, 2026, the Second Circuit upheld the bans, ruling that challengers must show at the first step of the Bruen test that stun guns and Tasers are in common use — and that these plaintiffs hadn't proved it. New York City waived its right to respond, but on September 8 the Court asked it to respond anyway. That usually means at least one justice wants a closer look; it does not mean the Court will take the case. The city's response is now due November 23, 2026.
Why it matters
In Caetano v. Massachusetts (2016), the Court already vacated a ruling that left stun guns unprotected. The "common use" question is also at the center of the rifle and magazine cases. Petitioners asked, in the alternative, that the Court hold this case until it decides Viramontes and Grant.
Timeline (from official SCOTUS docket)
- Sep 28, 2026 City's response deadline extended to November 23, 2026
- Sep 8, 2026 Response requested by the Court
- Aug 19, 2026 Distributed for the September 28, 2026 conference
- Aug 6, 2026 New York City waived its right to respond
- Jul 7, 2026 Petition filed with the Court
- Apr 13, 2026 2nd Circuit upheld the bans