New York Judge Ignores Supreme Court Second Amendment Precedent

In a move that shocked Second Amendment scholars and gun rights advocates alike, U.S. District Judge Edgardo Ramos upheld New York’s ban on stun guns and tasers in Calce v. City of New York, ruling that these non-lethal weapons are not protected under the Second Amendment. The decision came despite a growing body of precedent from courts across the country that have struck down similar bans.

Writing for Reason Magazine, legal scholar Eugene Volokh explained that Ramos diverged from the legal trend, placing the burden on plaintiffs to prove these tools are in “common use” for lawful purposes.

Second Amendment Advocates Cry Foul

Gun rights activist and YouTube host Jared Yanis of Guns & Gadgets 2nd Amendment News called the decision a blatant act of judicial defiance. “A federal judge just told the Supreme Court to piss off,” Yanis said bluntly in his recent video. His frustration centered around the fact that in Caetano v. Massachusetts (2016), the Supreme Court unanimously vacated a similar stun gun ban. “This flies in the face of a decade of court decisions,” Yanis added. For him, the case is not about statistical minutiae but about recognizing a person’s right to defend themselves with non-lethal means.

Judge Ramos Demands Hard Numbers

In his opinion, Ramos repeatedly stressed that the plaintiffs – backed by the Second Amendment Foundation and the Firearms Policy Coalition – failed to present any concrete data showing how commonly tasers and stun guns are used by law-abiding citizens. Volokh noted that Ramos dismissed non-binding case citations, including findings that “millions” of these devices have been sold, because they lacked precision. This insistence on hard statistics created a nearly impossible standard for plaintiffs to meet before even triggering the burden shift onto the government.

Legal Logic Reversed, Critics Say

Attorney Mark W. Smith, host of The Four Boxes Diner and member of the U.S. Supreme Court Bar, dissected the ruling in a detailed video analysis. He argued that Ramos improperly relocated the burden of proof. “This is a total appeal to authority,” Smith said, accusing the judge of citing other liberal district courts and ignoring the actual text of the Constitution. According to Smith, once a device qualifies as an “arm” – defined in Heller as anything usable offensively or defensively – the burden should fall on the government to justify a ban through historical precedent, not on the plaintiffs to justify its popularity.

The Misuse of the “Common Use” Test

Volokh emphasized that Caetano had already clarified that the Second Amendment protects arms “not in existence at the time of the founding.” While the Supreme Court did not conclusively rule that stun guns are in “common use,” the decision strongly implied it, especially through a concurring opinion by Justices Alito and Thomas. Alito specifically wrote that stun guns are “widely owned and accepted as a legitimate means of self-defense.” Yet Ramos discarded this, saying concurrences don’t create binding precedent – ignoring the clear spirit of the Court’s direction.

A National Trend Ignored

Yanis highlighted that more than a dozen states and cities have repealed or had their stun gun bans struck down since Heller and Caetano. Hawaii, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and even D.C. have backed off such restrictions. “New York is now standing alone,” Yanis noted. He described Ramos’s ruling as not only misguided but arrogant. “He just said, ‘I don’t give a [expletive] what Alito said. I’m doing it my way.’” That kind of judicial independence, in Yanis’s view, is dangerous when it openly contradicts Supreme Court guidance.

Balancing Tests Resurrected?

Mark Smith raised another red flag: Ramos’s subtle reintroduction of “interest balancing” – a method of evaluating laws the Supreme Court explicitly rejected in Heller and Bruen. Ramos mentioned potential injuries from stun guns and emphasized their dangers, implying they could be banned because of their perceived threat. “He’s essentially trying to suggest that these weapons are dangerous and therefore they can be banned,” Smith said. But as he explained, that kind of risk analysis has no place in Second Amendment jurisprudence post-Bruen.

A Burden Shift That Shouldn’t Be

Perhaps the most significant concern among legal experts is how Ramos distorted the burden of proof. Instead of requiring the government to prove that stun guns are “dangerous and unusual” – the historical standard for banning arms – Ramos required citizens to prove they are popular and widely used. “That is crap,” said Smith, who explained that such logic inverts the entire framework laid out by the Supreme Court. Volokh echoed that point, saying Ramos’s insistence on a “statistical inquiry” puts an unreasonable and constitutionally incorrect demand on the people.

The “Weight of Authority” Excuse

One of the more troubling justifications cited by Judge Ramos was the so-called “weight of authority.” As Mark Smith pointed out, Ramos leaned on other district and circuit court rulings from blue states like Connecticut, Virginia, and California – places notorious for restrictive gun laws. “That’s not the weight of authority that matters,” Smith said. “The authority that matters is the Constitution and the Supreme Court.” This appeal to consensus among lower courts, while legally weak, has become a tool for judges looking to sidestep higher precedent.

Where the Fight Goes From Here

Both Jared Yanis and Mark Smith believe the ruling will be appealed and eventually reversed. “The Second Amendment Foundation and Firearms Policy Coalition are already reviewing next steps,” Yanis said. Volokh also expressed skepticism that Ramos’s opinion would survive higher scrutiny. But all three commentators agree that until the Supreme Court steps in again – firmly and with consequences – lower courts will continue to test the boundaries of defiance.

A Dangerous Legal Game

What makes this ruling so unsettling isn’t just the outcome – it’s the reasoning. Judge Ramos didn’t misinterpret the law; he chose not to follow it. In doing so, he sent a clear signal: if you dislike a constitutional protection, just raise the bar high enough so the people can’t meet it. That kind of judicial activism undermines not just the Second Amendment, but the balance of powers itself. Whether it’s about firearms, speech, or due process, when judges play favorites with constitutional rights, everyone loses.

A Warning Sign for Gun Rights

The Calce v. City of New York decision has become a flashpoint in the ongoing battle over gun rights. It stands out not just for what it says, but for what it refuses to acknowledge – that the Supreme Court has spoken clearly, and that rights must be honored even when politically inconvenient. As Eugene Volokh, Jared Yanis, and Mark Smith have all shown in their analysis, this ruling is not just bad law – it’s bad faith. And if the Supreme Court doesn’t step in, more judges may follow suit, turning the Second Amendment into a suggestion instead of a right.