A federal judge just told the Supreme Court to piss off. Imagine this. In New York, you can carry a firearm for self-defense. But if you want to carry something less lethal, like a stun gun or a taser, you, my friend, are out of luck. And now a federal judge just doubled down on that. This flies in the face of a decade of court decisions across the country. So why did this judge go against the grain? Stick with me. I’m gonna break it down for you. This ruling is crazy, and I want you to know what it means for the Second Amendment going forward, and where this fight goes next.

If you care about the Second Amendment, make sure you smash the subscribe button down below and turn on the notifications. We cover stories like this every single day, and these are the ones the mainstream media won’t touch. And you won’t want to miss what’s coming next. And I’d love to have you as part of this growing freedom family. And a huge thank you to our sponsor today, Blackout Coffee, the pro-2A American coffee company that fuels freedom. I drink it every morning, and you should too. And right now, you can use code RTDBrew at checkout to take advantage of our buy one, get one free sale on our ready to drink canned lattes, both regular and in blueberry.

They’re phenomenal. If you haven’t checked them out, do it now. And grab them now at a huge savings, and this sale will not last long. Blackoutcoffee.com slash gng, and use that code RTDBrew. All right, this week, U.S. District Court Judge Edgardo Ramos upheld both New York State and New York City’s bans on stun guns and tasers. That’s right, bans on possession and sale of non-lethal self-defense tools. And Judge Ramos says it’s all perfectly fine. The plaintiffs, in his words, have failed to provide any evidence that stun guns and tasers are in common use.

We’ll get back to that real quick. According to Ramos, if you want these tools to be protected under the Second Amendment, you’ve got to prove that they’re commonly used by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes. But here’s where things get crazy. He’s the only federal judge to uphold such a ban in the last 10 years. Why is this such a big deal? Because in 2016, the United States Supreme Court weighed in on this exact issue. The case was Catano versus Massachusetts, and the Supreme Court unanimously, unanimously, nine to nothing, slapped down the Massachusetts Supreme Court for upholding a similar ban.

Now, the Second Amendment extends to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those not in existence at the time of the founding. That was one of the quotes from that decision. Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Clarence Thomas, those two justices, like, if we don’t, I hope they don’t ever retire. I hope they live forever. But they both went even further, saying that stun guns are widely owned, and bans like Massachusetts are flat out unconstitutional. Now, this was back in 2009. Do you think ownership has gone down since then? Highly unlikely. And in that case, the Supreme Court quoted that there were at least 200,000 of those items legally owned by Americans.

Guys, that’s pretty common for common use, but Judge Ramos brushed all that off, saying that the Catano decision didn’t require a definitive ruling on common use, and that Alito’s concurrence doesn’t count, because, wait for it, a concurrence isn’t binding precedent. In the world of, you know, legalese and legal talk, legal jargon, Judge Ramos just said, I don’t give a shit what Alito said, I’m doing it my way. Now, he also said the plaintiffs do not even identify the number of stun guns purchased in the United States for any given year. He argued the plaintiffs represented by the Second Amendment Foundation and Firearms Policy Coalition failed to back their case with hard data.

This decision bucks the national trend. More than a dozen states and cities have already had their stun gun bans overturned or repealed voluntarily. Why? Because the Supreme Court said the Second Amendment extends to them and bans on them are flat out unconstitutional. But now New York City and New York State stand alone. Meanwhile, the Second Amendment Foundation and Firearms Policy Coalition, both friends of mine, say they’re reviewing the decision and planning their next move. And I have no doubt that they’ll be back in court, because the precedent is the Supreme Court’s.

Not some wannabe cool activist judge in New York, Mr. Ramos. And this case highlights exactly why we need to stay vigilant. When judges can cherry pick which parts of the Constitution to honor, it puts all of our rights at risk. And that is a judge who should be removed from his position. Do you think non-lethal self-defense tools should be protected under the Second Amendment? Drop your thoughts in the comments down below. I’d love to hear your opinion. Let’s talk about this. But be sure to like, share and subscribe to stay updated on cases like this.

And a huge thank you again to Blackout Coffee for standing with freedom. Grab a bag of coffee, or even better yet, grab some of the RTDs and take part of our buy one get one free sale and blackoutcoffee.com slash gng. I appreciate y’all. Thank you to the groups like Firearms Policy Coalition and Second Amendment Foundation who are fighting the fights when people are wronged. Unfortunately, it happens a lot around this country. So support groups that support you. Links are down below to join them. And I appreciate y’all. Hope you have a phenomenal day.

Take care y’all. [tr:trw].

See more of Guns & Gadgets 2nd Amendment News on their Public Channel and the MPN Guns & Gadgets 2nd Amendment News channel.