Pepper Spray and Stun Gun Laws by State (2026)

Pepper spray and a stun gun are legal for an adult to buy, own, and carry with no permit in most of the country. That single rule covers the majority of the 50 states plus the District of Columbia, but it breaks down sharply for one device in a specific group of jurisdictions. Twelve jurisdictions regulate a stun gun the way a firearm is regulated, requiring a license, a background check, or a device-specific possession statute rather than leaving ordinary carry alone: Hawaii, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Wisconsin, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, and Mississippi. Pepper spray follows a gentler pattern of exceptions, capped by ounce or by chemical formula in a handful of states rather than licensed like a weapon. This page splits the two devices, covers the federal baseline once, and compares all 51 jurisdictions.

Jurisdiction scope: This page covers federal law and the law of all 50 US states and the District of Columbia on civilian possession, purchase, and carry of pepper spray (also called mace, tear gas, or OC spray in various statutes) and a stun gun or taser (also called an electronic control device, electronic defense weapon, or electric weapon in various statutes) for self-defense. It does not address Canadian provincial law, use-of-force law beyond what a possession or carry statute itself states, or a specific city or county ordinance except where noted for preemption.

Federal law: what it does and does not reach

No federal statute regulates a civilian's purchase or possession of pepper spray or a stun gun. Federal law matters in three places.

Federal buildings. Under 18 U.S.C. Section 930(a), whoever knowingly possesses or causes to be present "a firearm or other dangerous weapon in a Federal facility (other than a Federal court facility)" faces a fine, imprisonment of up to 1 year, or both. Subsection (e) sets up to 2 years for a federal court facility, and subsection (b) up to 5 years where the weapon is intended to be used in a crime. Section 930(g)(2) defines the term:

The term "dangerous weapon" means a weapon, device, instrument, material, or substance, animate or inanimate, that is used for, or is readily capable of, causing death or serious bodily injury, except that such term does not include a pocket knife with a blade of less than 2 and one-half inches in length.

The definition names neither device. Whether a particular spray or stun gun is "readily capable of" causing serious bodily injury is a question of fact the statute does not answer. Subsection (d)(3) exempts "the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes," and subsection (h) requires notice of the ban to be posted at each public entrance. A "Federal facility" is "a building or part thereof owned or leased by the Federal Government, where Federal employees are regularly present for the purpose of performing their official duties."

Air travel. The Transportation Security Administration's screening rules, which are agency policy rather than statute, bar both devices from carry-on bags. One 4 fl. oz. (118 ml) container of mace or pepper spray is permitted in checked baggage if it has a safety mechanism to prevent accidental discharge, and sprays containing more than 2 percent by mass of tear gas (CS or CN) are prohibited in checked baggage. Tasers, stun guns, and other electro-shock weapons may travel in checked baggage only if transported so the device cannot discharge accidentally. Airlines may set stricter rules.

National parks. National Park Service regulations prohibit possessing, carrying, or using a "weapon" in a park area except as the regulations provide (36 CFR 2.4(b)(1)). 36 CFR 1.4 defines "weapon" to include an "irritant gas device" and any "weapon the possession of which is prohibited under the laws of the State in which the park area or portion thereof is located."

No federal statute regulates pepper spray under federal chemical-weapons or firearms law by name in a way that reaches ordinary civilian possession, and neither device meets the firearm definition in 18 U.S.C. Section 921(a)(3).

Pepper spray and stun gun laws by state (comparison table)

The table below summarizes each state's rule for pepper spray, a stun gun or taser, the applicable age or permit condition, a notable restricted-place or local rule, and the primary statute. Every cell is a summary; open the state's own page for the full analysis, every citation, and the exact statutory text.

States that license or effectively ban stun guns

A stun gun is unregulated, or close to it, in most states, but twelve jurisdictions treat the device closer to how a firearm is treated. Massachusetts made the change most recently and most completely: St. 2024, c. 135, Section 20 rewrote the "Firearm" definition in Massachusetts General Laws c. 140, Section 121 to begin "a stun gun, pistol, revolver, rifle, shotgun," so since October 2024 a stun gun is legally a firearm everywhere that word appears in the state's firearms-licensing chapter and its carrying statute. Carrying one outside a residence or place of business without a license to carry is punishable by two and one half to five years in state prison, or 18 months to two and one half years in a jail or house of correction, the same range that applies to an unlicensed handgun. Even keeping one at a residence or place of business without the licensing Section 129C requires is a separate crime under c. 269, Section 10(h)(1), punishable by up to 2 years in a jail or house of correction or a fine of up to $500 for a first offense, because only a Section 131 license to carry, limited to a lawful resident 21 or older, satisfies Section 129C for a stun gun; an 18, 19, or 20 year old has no license that covers one. The change followed Ramirez v. Commonwealth, 479 Mass. 331 (2018), in which the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court struck the state's prior absolute stun-gun ban as unconstitutional and gave the Legislature 60 days to respond; the Legislature responded by folding stun guns into firearm licensing rather than deregulating them.

Michigan bans an ordinary contact stun gun outright for civilians. MCL 750.224a makes it a felony, punishable by up to 4 years, to sell, offer for sale, or possess a portable device that directs an electrical current, impulse, wave, or beam designed to incapacitate, injure, or kill, with no general civilian exception. The only path open to an ordinary Michigan resident is a narrow category of device using "electro-muscular disruption technology" with a manufacturer-tracked identification system, possessed by a concealed pistol license holder who has completed required training. People v Yanna, 297 Mich App 137 (2012), struck down an earlier, complete version of this ban with no exceptions at all; the current, narrower exception structure had already been enacted, effective August 6, 2012, before Yanna was decided on June 26, 2012, though it was not yet in effect on the date of decision, and was not itself before that court.

Hawaii regulates a stun gun, which its statute calls an "electric gun," through a licensed-dealer sale system closer to how the state treats a firearm than how most states treat a self-defense stun gun: a seller needs an annual county license, must run a criminal-history background check on the buyer, and must have the buyer sign a declaration of eligibility before completing a sale. No one under 21 may own, possess, or control an electric gun in Hawaii.

Illinois requires a Firearm Owner's Identification Card, the same license the state requires for a firearm, to acquire or possess a stun gun or taser at all, under 430 ILCS 65/2(a)(1). A separate carrying statute additionally restricted where and how a stun gun or taser could be carried; the Illinois Supreme Court held that carrying restriction facially unconstitutional under the Second Amendment in People v. Webb, 2019 IL 122951, because a concealed-carry license cannot be issued for a stun gun or taser at all, leaving an owner no lawful way to satisfy the statute's own exceptions. The struck-down text remains in the statute, unrepealed; Webb's holding is what keeps it unenforceable.

Connecticut makes carrying an "electronic defense weapon," the state's statutory term for a stun gun, a class E felony under Conn. Gen. Stat. 53-206(a), unless the carrier is 21 or older and holds one of four specific Connecticut firearm permits or certificates. A separate statute makes it a class D felony to keep one in a vehicle without the same permit.

Wisconsin makes possessing an "electric weapon" a Class H felony by default under Wis. Stat. 941.295, with an exemption for a person's own dwelling, place of business, or land they own, lease, or legally occupy. Outside those places, a Wisconsin concealed-carry license, or a recognized out-of-state license meeting the statute's background-check condition, is required.

Mississippi licenses a stun gun only for concealed carry, using the same five-year credential that covers a concealed pistol, generally available starting at 21 and subject to a prohibited-persons screen. Open carry and mere possession need no license at all.

Pennsylvania is a middle case rather than a flat ban: 18 Pa.C.S. Section 908.1 lets a person possess and use a stun gun in self-defense if the device is labeled with, or comes with, clearly written instructions on its use, and bars anyone barred from firearm possession under Section 6105 from possessing one regardless of labeling. A separate statute, Section 908(c), lists a stun gun among "offensive weapons" that require "authorization by law" to possess; no Pennsylvania appellate decision has resolved how that authorization language and Section 908.1's self-defense provision apply to each other. In re R.A.F., a Minor, 149 A.3d 63 (Pa. Super. 2016), calls a stun gun an "offensive weapon per se" while quoting Section 908(c), but the opinion never cites or discusses Section 908.1, the statute that actually authorizes ordinary self-defense possession.

The District of Columbia allows stun-gun possession only at 18 or older, with a narrow exception for a minor facing an immediate threat, and bars possession in District government buildings, penal and juvenile facilities, children's facilities and schools, or on posted premises, unless permission is given. A separate general carry offense, D.C. Code Section 22-4504(a), bars carrying any "deadly or dangerous weapon" without a license, punishable by up to 5 years for carrying away from the carrier's home, business, or land; its license exceptions under Section 22-4505 reach only a pistol, rifle, or shotgun, not a stun gun, so carrying one outside the places Section 7-2502.15(c) covers can still expose a person to this offense under the "dangerous" test the D.C. Court of Appeals set out in Jones v. United States, 67 A.3d 547 (D.C. 2013).

New Jersey, New York, and Rhode Island round out the group with a genuinely unusual pattern: a statute that still reads as a ban, paired with a court order or an enforcement policy that blocks or limits enforcement in a specific, limited way rather than repealing the ban outright. Those three states are covered in the next section, because the limits on each non-enforcement order matter as much as the fact that one exists.

New Jersey, New York, and Rhode Island: banned by statute, with enforcement blocked or limited in different ways

New Jersey. N.J.S.A. 2C:39-3(h) states in full: "Stun guns. Any person who knowingly has in his possession any stun gun is guilty of a crime of the fourth degree." The statute's text has never been amended. A federal lawsuit, New Jersey Second Amendment Society and Mark Cheeseman v. Porrino, No. 16-4906 (D.N.J.), produced a Consent Order entered April 25, 2017. As the New Jersey Legislature's own statement to a later bill, Assembly Bill A2133 (2018-2019 session), describes it, the order declared 2C:39-3(h) unconstitutional "to the extent this statute outright prohibits, under criminal penalty, individuals from possessing electronic arms" and provided that it "shall not be enforced," and separately provided that N.J.S.2C:39-9(d) "shall not be enforced to the extent this statute prohibits, under criminal penalty, the sale or shipment of Tasers or other electronic arms." As the Legislature describes it, the order states no age limit; the under-18 carve-back comes from a separate document, the Attorney General's October 20, 2017 memorandum to the Superintendent of State Police, county prosecutors, sheriffs, and police chiefs, which directs that both statutes "may still be enforced" against possession, sale, or shipment involving anyone under 18. A separate 2018 regulation independently bars possessing a stun gun before age 18 and bars selling or transferring one to a minor.

New York. N.Y. Penal Law Section 265.01(1) still makes possessing an "electronic dart gun" or "electronic stun gun" a class A misdemeanor, criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, and the statute has never been amended to remove that language. A 2019 federal district court order, Avitabile v. Beach, 368 F. Supp. 3d 404 (N.D.N.Y. 2019), enjoined the New York State Police from enforcing Section 265.01(1) against those two devices. That injunction binds the State Police and those acting in concert with it; it does not bind a county district attorney, another police department, or New York City's own separate stun-gun ban under N.Y.C. Admin. Code Section 10-135. Since the U.S. Supreme Court reset Second Amendment analysis in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), courts have rejected challenges to the underlying ban for lack of evidence that stun guns and tasers are in common use for self-defense, without disturbing the Avitabile injunction: the Southern District of New York granted summary judgment for New York City on both the state ban and the city's own ban in Calce v. City of New York, No. 21 Civ. 8208 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 24, 2025), and the Second Circuit affirmed by summary order on April 13, 2026 in the same case, No. 25-861-cv, an order that by its own terms carries no precedential effect. The Calce plaintiffs filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, Docket No. 26-46, on July 7, 2026; the Court requested a response by October 8, 2026 after the City initially waived one. New York City's own ban, separate from the state statute and untouched by the Avitabile injunction, has been charged by the NYPD and was upheld alongside the state ban in the Calce litigation.

Rhode Island. R.I. Gen. Laws Section 11-47-42(a)(1) lists "stun-gun" by name among instruments no person may carry, possess, or attempt to use against another, grouped with a blackjack, slingshot, billy, and several other named items; the statute has not been amended since 2012. O'Neil v. Neronha, No. 1:19-cv-00612 (D.R.I. Mar. 15, 2022), granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs and held: "The prohibition against the possession and use of stun guns set forth in Section 11-47-42(a) is an unconstitutional restriction of the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment in light of Heller," permanently enjoining the Rhode Island Attorney General and State Police Superintendent from enforcing Section 11-47-42(a) "as related to stun guns." The General Assembly has not amended or repealed the statutory text since. The injunction reaches only subsection (a); it does not touch subsection (b), which separately bars selling a stun gun to anyone under 18 without a parent's or legal guardian's written authorization, punishable by a fine of $1,000 to $3,000 or imprisonment of one to five years.

Pepper spray: caps by ounce, caps by formula, and states with no cap at all

Most states place no numeric limit on how much pepper spray an adult may carry, but a working group of states caps it, either by volume or by the chemical formula itself, and the two kinds of cap are easy to confuse. California caps a self-defense aerosol at 2.5 oz. net weight under Penal Code Section 22810. Florida caps a compliant "self-defense chemical spray" at two ounces of chemical under Fla. Stat. Section 790.001(4)(b), the same definition that excludes it from the "tear gas gun" and "chemical weapon or device" categories described elsewhere on this page. New York's cap comes from a Department of Health regulation, not the Penal Law itself: 10 NYCRR Section 54.3 limits a "self-defense spray device" to 0.75 oz. net weight and 0.7% total capsaicinoids, with oleoresin capsicum as the only permitted active ingredient. New Jersey caps a self-defense chemical substance at three-quarters of an ounce, one device per person, under N.J.S.A. 2C:39-6(i)(1). North Carolina exempts self-defense tear gas from its general ban only below a 150 cubic centimeter device capacity and a 50 cubic centimeter cartridge or shell capacity. South Carolina's default rule is the reverse of most states: possession is illegal unless it fits a self-defense exception capped at 50 cubic centimeters, about 1.69 fl. oz., smaller than most retail canisters. Arkansas caps a self-defense container at 300 milliliters, about 10.1 fl. oz., a ceiling Act 566 of 2021 raised from an earlier, smaller figure. Nevada's cap applies only to a CS-based device, 2 fl. oz. under NRS 202.375; on the statute's text, untested by any Nevada court, Attorney General opinion, or agency guidance, an ordinary oleoresin capsicum spray, made from a natural substance and not claimed to cause permanent injury, falls outside the statutory definition of "tear gas" altogether and carries no cap at all, though a product that in fact causes permanent injury would not qualify for that exclusion.

Two states cap pepper spray by chemical formula rather than by volume, and both are frequently misdescribed in outside summaries as ounce-based. Michigan's self-defense spray or foam device statute, MCL 750.224d, permits either not more than 35 grams of orthochlorobenzalmalononitrile (CS gas) combined with inert ingredients, or a solution of not more than 18% oleoresin capsicum, with no separate ounce ceiling. Wisconsin's tear-gas exemption, Wis. Stat. 941.26(4)(a), turns on the same kind of formula test, oleoresin capsicum or CS-gel plus inert ingredients only, not a size limit; several retailer guides state a Wisconsin ounce figure that does not exist anywhere in the statute's text.

Minor and age rules

Age floors for either device, where a state sets one at all, are not uniform, and several states set a different floor for pepper spray than for a stun gun inside the very same statute. Minnesota's tear-gas-compound rule bars possession or use under 16 without a parent's or guardian's written permission, while its electronic-incapacitation-device rule flatly bars anyone under 18 with no listed exception. California sets 16 for both devices but with different consent mechanics: a minor 16 or older may buy or possess tear gas if accompanied by a parent or guardian or with the parent's written consent, while a stun gun requires the parent's written consent either way, with no accompanied-by-a-parent alternative. Arkansas's stun-gun statute, Ark. Code Ann. 5-73-133, bars purchase or possession by anyone "eighteen (18) years of age or under," which works out to an effective floor of 19 rather than 18. Massachusetts requires 18 for self-defense spray, with a local permit available as young as 15, or 12 with parental consent, while the license to carry that now covers a stun gun is limited to a resident 21 or older. Washington sets 18 for pepper spray, or 14 to 17 with a parent's or guardian's permission. New York's self-defense-spray exemption excludes anyone under 18. Wisconsin bars anyone under 18 from possessing an electric weapon outright, with no parental-consent exception. Several other states set no age floor for either device anywhere in their weapons statutes at all, among them Georgia, Kentucky, Missouri, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, and Wyoming.

Preemption and local ordinances

Most states leave a city or county free to regulate pepper spray or a stun gun more strictly than state law, because the typical statewide firearms-preemption statute is scoped to firearms, ammunition, and firearm accessories, and does not name either device. Three cities illustrate what that room produces in practice. Honolulu regulates pepper spray on two separate tracks under its own ordinances: Revised Ordinances of Honolulu Section 41-12.3 bans any device emitting CN or CS tear gas or an OC-based animal repellent, while a separate set of sections, 41-27.1 through 41-27.9, exempts and separately licenses the one narrowly defined product the ordinance calls "pepper spray," requiring a city license to sell it and barring a minor from purchasing, possessing, or using it. New York City bans stun-gun possession and sale outright under N.Y.C. Admin. Code Section 10-135, a class A misdemeanor, separate from and unaffected by the federal injunction against the state's own stun-gun statute described above; the ban was upheld alongside the state ban in the Calce litigation. Philadelphia bars anyone under 18 from owning, using, possessing, selling, or transferring a stun gun under Philadelphia Code Section 10-825, fining that violation up to $500, and fines a seller who transfers a stun gun to someone under 18 up to $2,000.

A handful of states run the opposite direction and preempt local regulation of these specific devices, not just firearms. Georgia's preemption statute, O.C.G.A. 16-11-173, is the most explicit device-specific version of this rule: it defines "weapon" to include "electric stun devices, and defense sprays" by name and bars any county, municipality, or school district from regulating either device's possession, purchase, sale, or carry for the general public, with a narrow exception in subsection (c) letting a local government regulate how its own employees or unpaid volunteers carry one in the course of their duties. Washington's pepper-spray statute, RCW 9.91.160(2), expressly bars any town, city, county, or other unit of local government from prohibiting an adult, or a permitted 14-to-17-year-old, from purchasing, possessing, or using a personal protection spray device. Minnesota's Section 624.731, subdivision 10, makes the statute the exclusive regulation of both devices statewide, preempting local ordinances, though subdivision 9 separately lets a county or city license the business of a vendor who sells them. New Jersey's Criminal Code preemption clause, N.J.S.A. 2C:1-5(d), bars a local ordinance that conflicts with the Code's own regulation of both devices, though it is a conflict-preemption rule rather than one that automatically voids every local rule that is merely stricter. West Virginia's municipal preemption statute, W. Va. Code 8-12-5a, bars a municipality from limiting the purchase, possession, transfer, carrying, transport, sale, or storage of a "deadly weapon, firearm, or pepper spray" by name, and, through a second, separate clause, also reaches a stun gun's sale, purchase, transfer, manufacture, repair, or display as a "personal defense tool" other than a firearm, though that second clause does not cover carrying or possessing a stun gun the way the first clause covers pepper spray.

North Dakota illustrates the local-option side from the opposite direction: the state's local-preemption statute is scoped to firearms and ammunition only, so Fargo, the state's largest city, has adopted its own stun-device ordinance that keeps the state's single-application carve-back limited to a firearm-prohibited person but adds a separate, unlimited rule making a projectile stun device capable of multiple voltage applications a "dangerous weapon" for everyone in Fargo, a category the state default does not reach at all. Wisconsin shows a third pattern: its general local-weapons-preemption statute, Section 66.0409, is scoped to knives and firearms and does not name an electric weapon, but the Wisconsin Supreme Court held in Wisconsin Carry, Inc. v. City of Madison, 2017 WI 19, that the state's separate concealed-carry statute, Section 175.60, independently preempts a municipality from restricting a licensee's carry of an electric weapon, the same way it protects a licensed handgun. Milwaukee's own ordinance banning a concealed dangerous weapon, which names an electric weapon, remains enforceable against anyone who is not a Section 175.60 licensee.

Using either device against a person, including a police officer

A recurring pattern across many states, distinct from ordinary possession or carry rules, is a separate and often more serious offense for using pepper spray or a stun gun against a specific person, most often an on-duty police officer, corrections officer, firefighter, or another listed official. Alabama's only statute naming pepper spray at all, Code of Alabama 1975 Section 13A-6-27, criminalizes using a defense spray as a weapon during a crime or against a law enforcement officer performing official duties, a Class C felony that does not touch ownership or carrying. Georgia's enhanced-sentence statute, O.C.G.A. Section 16-11-106, treats a stun gun or taser as a "firearm" for a consecutive 5-year sentence when carried during certain felonies. Oklahoma's Section 1272.3 criminalizes only knowingly discharging a stun gun, tear gas weapon, mace, or similar agent against a peace officer, corrections officer, probation or parole officer, firefighter, or emergency medical technician acting in the course of duty, a felony that leaves ordinary civilian possession untouched. Oregon makes discharging either device against another person a two-tier crime: a Class A misdemeanor under ORS 163.212 for reckless discharge against anyone, rising to a Class C felony under ORS 163.213 if the person discharging it knows the target is a peace officer, corrections officer, firefighter, or emergency medical provider acting in the course of duty. South Carolina's Section 16-23-415 makes taking a stun gun or taser from a law enforcement or corrections officer a felony. Wisconsin's Section 941.21 makes disarming a peace or correctional officer of a pepper-spray device or an electric weapon a Class H felony. South Dakota's 2024 law, Section 22-11-39, makes disarming an on-duty officer of a weapon, defined to include a stun gun, chemical irritant spray, or baton, a Class 4 felony, and its aggravated-assault statute, Section 22-18-1.1(2), reaches causing bodily injury to another with a "dangerous weapon," a definition that separately names a stun gun at SDCL 22-1-2(10). Rhode Island's Section 11-5-5 makes it a felony to knowingly and willfully spray mace or an oleoresin capsicum product, causing bodily injury, at a long list of officers and officials, including police officers, firefighters, judges, and probation officers, while they are performing their duties. Pennsylvania's Section 2702(a)(7) makes it aggravated assault, a felony of the second degree, to use tear or noxious gas, expressly including red pepper spray, or an electric or electronic incapacitation device against a police officer, firefighter, or several other listed officials acting within the scope of employment. Ohio's felonious-assault statute, R.C. 2903.11(A)(2), reaches causing physical harm to another "by means of a deadly weapon," a felony of the second degree that rises to a felony of the first degree if the victim is a peace officer, provided a spray or a stun gun meets Ohio's own deadly-weapon test. Texas's Section 38.14(b) makes taking a stun gun, or a "personal protection chemical dispensing device," from a peace officer or several other listed officials, by force, its own separate felony.

Court decisions shaping stun-gun law

Caetano v. Massachusetts, 577 U.S. 411 (2016), is the case Ramirez v. Commonwealth traces back to. The U.S. Supreme Court, in a per curiam decision, vacated an earlier Massachusetts ruling that had upheld the state's total stun-gun ban; it decided no case on the merits itself and struck no statute, but it forced the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court to re-examine that state's categorical stun-gun ban under a corrected Second Amendment framework in Ramirez v. Commonwealth, covered below.

Ramirez v. Commonwealth, 479 Mass. 331 (2018), is where that re-examination produced a result. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, following Caetano, held the state's prior absolute stun-gun ban unconstitutional and declared it facially invalid, because the ban was written as a flat prohibition with only law-enforcement exceptions and the court could not narrow it to exclude only prohibited persons without rewriting state law. The court stayed its judgment for 60 days to let the Legislature act; the Legislature's eventual response, described above, was to fold stun guns into firearm licensing rather than deregulate them.

People v Yanna, 297 Mich App 137 (2012), struck an earlier, complete version of Michigan's stun-gun ban, one with no exceptions for private citizens at all, as unconstitutional. Michigan's Legislature had already enacted the current, narrower exception structure, through 2012 PA 122, approved and filed May 8, 2012 and effective August 6, 2012, before Yanna was decided on June 26, 2012, though the amendment was not yet in effect on the date of decision, so the opinion addresses only the ban it had before it, not the CPL-and-tracking-device exception Michigan uses today.

Avitabile v. Beach, 368 F. Supp. 3d 404 (N.D.N.Y. 2019), enjoined the New York State Police from enforcing Penal Law Section 265.01(1) against electronic dart guns and electronic stun guns, applying the pre-Bruen framework then used in that circuit. The order's own decretal paragraphs name no plaintiff and bind the State Police and those acting in concert with it; they say nothing about a county district attorney, another police department, or New York City's separate stun-gun ban.

Calce v. City of New York, No. 21 Civ. 8208 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 24, 2025), is where the underlying New York ban was tested again, after the U.S. Supreme Court reset Second Amendment analysis in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022). The Southern District of New York granted summary judgment to the City, finding no evidence that stun guns and tasers are in common use for self-defense, the threshold Bruen requires a challenger to clear. The Second Circuit affirmed by summary order on April 13, 2026, No. 25-861-cv, an order that its own text says carries no precedential effect; the panel framed the case as an evidentiary failure under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 rather than a ruling that stun guns are categorically unprotected. The plaintiffs filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, Docket No. 26-46, on July 7, 2026.

O'Neil v. Neronha, No. 1:19-cv-00612 (D.R.I. Mar. 15, 2022), granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs and permanently enjoined Rhode Island's Attorney General and State Police Superintendent from enforcing the stun-gun prohibition in Section 11-47-42(a), holding it "an unconstitutional restriction of the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment in light of Heller." The Rhode Island General Assembly has not amended the underlying statute since.

The New Jersey consent order in New Jersey Second Amendment Society and Mark Cheeseman v. Porrino, No. 16-4906 (D.N.J.), entered April 25, 2017, is not a published judicial opinion striking a statute; it is a negotiated order, described in the New Jersey Legislature's own statement to Assembly Bill A2133, declaring N.J.S.A. 2C:39-3(h) unconstitutional to the extent it outright prohibits possessing electronic arms, and directing that it, along with N.J.S.2C:39-9(d)'s sale-and-shipment ban, "shall not be enforced." As the Legislature describes it, the order states no age limit; the under-18 carve-back described above comes from the Attorney General's separate October 20, 2017 memorandum, not the order itself. It is a limited non-enforcement, not a repeal.

Wisconsin Carry, Inc. v. City of Madison, 2017 WI 19, held that Wisconsin's concealed-carry statute, not just the state's narrower knife-and-firearm local-preemption statute, blocks a municipality from restricting a licensee's carry of an electric weapon, the same protection the same statute gives a licensed handgun. The decision protects a Wisconsin concealed-carry licensee's stun-gun carry from a local ordinance like Milwaukee's; it does not protect someone who does not hold that license.

Disclaimer: This article provides general legal information about pepper spray and stun gun laws in the United States as of September 2026. It is not legal advice. New York's stun-gun status is in active post-Caetano litigation (a pending certiorari petition before the U.S. Supreme Court) and can change without notice. Verify the current text of your state's statute before relying on it, and consult a lawyer licensed in your state for advice about a specific situation.