Skip to content
Pepper spray, kubotan, and gavel on court documents with text Protected Arms?

Two Federal Lawsuits Could Make Pepper Spray and Stun Gun Bans Unconstitutional

Pepper spray keychain and kubotan on kitchen counter beside house keys in morning light

After she was groped in a Walmart aisle, a New Jersey woman posted in Reddit's self-defense forum asking what small safety item she should carry when walking alone: pepper spray, a kubotan, an alarm. Her last question was about the law. "I'm also in New Jersey, so are there any legal restrictions I should be aware of?" she asked on September 29.

Eight days earlier, a federal lawsuit filed in her state answered that question: under New Jersey law, carrying a self-defense tool because you expect to need it someday is what makes it a crime. On September 21, the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs, the knife-rights group Knife Rights, and four New Jersey residents sued in federal court to strike down that rule, arguing that the Second Amendment protects far more than guns (Ammoland, New Jersey Monitor).

It is one of two federal cases now testing whether your everyday carry is constitutionally protected. The other, filed in San Diego in December 2025 by less-lethal launcher maker Byrna Technologies against California's attorney general, challenges that state's ban on selling pepper projectile weapons (Fox News, San Diego Union-Tribune). Together, they are the first coordinated push to extend the Supreme Court's modern Second Amendment doctrine, built for firearms, to the things millions of Americans carry: sprays, stun guns, knives, batons, and keychain tools.

Neither case has produced a ruling yet, and neither can instantly "legalize your carry nationwide" on its own. But both ask courts to answer a question that until recently almost nobody litigated: which weapons qualify as the "arms" the Constitution protects.

The New Jersey case: carrying anything "in preparation for self-defense" is the crime

The New Jersey lawsuit, Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs, Inc. v. Davenport, No. 1:26-cv-12401, goes after two layers of state law. The first is N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(d), which makes it a fourth-degree crime, carrying up to 18 months in prison, to possess an "other weapon" under circumstances "not manifestly appropriate" for its lawful uses. New Jersey's definition of "weapon" is broad enough to cover purpose-built arms and ordinary objects alike. The second layer is a long list of outright bans covering switchblades, gravity knives, daggers, dirks, stilettos, billies, blackjacks, metal knuckles, and slingshots.

What turns an everyday object into a crime, the complaint explains, is your reason for carrying it. The plaintiffs point to State v. Kelly, a 1990 New Jersey Supreme Court decision about a woman who carried a carpet cutter because a former boyfriend who had repeatedly beaten her was stalking her. He attacked her exactly as she feared, and she stopped him with the cutter. The court still upheld her conviction, drawing a line between spontaneously grabbing a weapon during an attack, which can be lawful, and preparing ahead of time — what the court called "anticipatory self-defense" — which is not (Ammoland's summary of the complaint, case record). Self-defense is by nature something you prepare for, and New Jersey punishes that preparation.

The complaint's attorney, Daniel Schmutter, put the sweep of the law in one paragraph:

"A baseball bat, a hammer, a screwdriver, any knife, a box cutter, pepper spray, bear spray, a stick, anything. And if you happen to have a baseball bat in your car but you are not on your way to a baseball game, you can be arrested, prosecuted, and imprisoned under New Jersey law." Complaint in ANJRPC v. Davenport, as quoted by the New Jersey Monitor and NJ Spotlight News, September 2026. Emphasis ours.

The paradox at the center of the case is that New Jersey now recognizes the right to carry a loaded handgun in public for self-defense, because the Supreme Court's 2022 Bruen decision forced it to, while still arresting people who carry a less-lethal alternative for the same purpose.

Carrying a concealed handgun in New Jersey

StatusLawful since Bruen (2022) ended the state's "justifiable need" requirement
RequirementA carry permit, plus training and background checks
Carrying for self-defenseThe recognized, lawful purpose of the permit

Carrying pepper spray, a knife, or a baton for self-defense in New Jersey

StatusChargeable under N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(d) and the Kelly rule on "anticipatory" carry
RequirementNone available: the defensive purpose itself supplies the offense
Carrying for self-defensePotentially a fourth-degree crime, up to 18 months in prison

Plaintiffs' theory: Bruen protects carrying "arms" in public for self-defense, and the amendment's text says "arms," a category that includes sprays, stun guns, and knives. Sources: Ammoland, New Jersey Monitor, complaint as reported.

The four individual plaintiffs describe exactly the carry habits the law freezes. Wendy Copenhaver, who owns a gun range in Glassboro with her brother Wayne Viden, says the route runs past a cemetery and she wants a knife, baton, or pepper gel against animals and people. Viden says the fear started when robbers broke into their business at gunpoint in January 2023. Walter Everard Jr., a hunter and Navy veteran, says he no longer goes into the woods alone. Salvatore Marsilla works behind the counter of his store all day (Ammoland). Copenhaver's summary of the situation: "You can carry a gun for self-defense in New Jersey, but you can't carry pepper spray or a knife. That doesn't make any sense."

The state intends to fight. A spokesman for Attorney General Jennifer Davenport's office, Mike Symons, said the restrictions are "common-sense" and "keep our residents safe," per the Monitor. This is the latest of more than a dozen post-Bruen Second Amendment suits against New Jersey, but the first aimed squarely at non-firearm carry.

The California case: a pepper launcher is legal, its ammunition is not

The second suit is Schiller v. Bonta, No. 3:25-cv-03411, filed December 3, 2025, in the Southern District of California. The plaintiffs are Byrna Technologies, the Arizona maker of CO2-powered launchers that fire paintball-sized pepper projectiles, plus two California residents. They sue Attorney General Rob Bonta over the state's classification of pepperball weapons as "tear gas weapons" and of pepper rounds as restricted ammunition, which makes selling them to civilians illegal, with exceptions for law enforcement and some licensed security personnel (San Diego Union-Tribune).

The classification traces back to a 2021 riot-control law, AB 48, which restricted law enforcement's use of chemical agents and kinetic projectiles at protests. The Legislature said the bill targeted police crowd control, but its language reached civilian sales too, as Byrna discovered when California blocked its ammunition and launcher sales (California Globe).

Byrna's argument rests on numbers and precedent. CEO Bryan Ganz says the company has sold more than 750,000 launchers in six years, which the complaint offers as proof the weapons are "in common use," the test the Supreme Court laid out for protected arms. The complaint quotes Bruen and leans hard on the 2016 stun-gun case Caetano v. Massachusetts, which held unanimously that less-lethal weapons qualify as arms (Fox News). Ganz frames the stakes in the same inversion as New Jersey: "It's easier for a Californian to get a license to carry a lethal weapon than to carry a Byrna with chemical irritant rounds." Ganz has named the next target if California falls: New York, the other state obstructing the company's sales.

Knife Rights, meanwhile, says the New Jersey filing brings the number of federal knife-ban lawsuits it is pursuing to four. The two headline suits are part of a broader, coordinated litigation campaign.

The two cases side by side

Schiller v. Bonta (California) ANJRPC v. Davenport (New Jersey)
Filed December 3, 2025 September 21, 2026
Court U.S. District Court, Southern District of California (San Diego) U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey
Plaintiffs Byrna Technologies and two California residents Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs, Knife Rights, and four New Jersey residents
Law challenged Ban on selling pepper projectile launchers and rounds, classified as tear gas weapons and restricted ammunition (rooted in AB 48) N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(d) "not manifestly appropriate" possession law, the Kelly anticipatory-self-defense rule, and bans on switchblades, gravity knives, dirks, billies, blackjacks, metal knuckles, slingshots
Core claim 750,000+ sold launchers are "common arms"; Caetano already protects less-lethal weapons under the Second Amendment The Second Amendment protects arms, not just firearms; Bruen bars states from punishing defensive carry; a 1771 dictionary defined arms as anything used "to cast at or strike another"
Status as of Oct. 1, 2026 Pending; no merits ruling. Launchers and kinetic ammo remain legal in California; chemical rounds restricted (Byrna) Pending; filed 10 days ago. State has vowed to defend the law (Monitor)
If plaintiffs win California must allow sales of pepper launchers and rounds; precedent pressures New York and similar restrictions Defensive carry of knives, batons, sprays becomes lawful in New Jersey; category bans fall unless the state produces historical analogues

Sources: Fox News, California Globe, San Diego Union-Tribune, Ammoland, New Jersey Monitor, Knife Rights. Case numbers from court records cited by the California Globe and Ammoland.

How the Second Amendment reached your keychain

The doctrinal path runs through three Supreme Court decisions:

  • 2008 — Heller: The right extends, "prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding." → novelty is no disqualifier.
  • 2016 — Caetano: Unanimous. Jaime Caetano was convicted for possessing a stun gun that kept her abusive ex away. The Supreme Court vacated: stun guns are protected arms. → stun guns count as arms.
  • 2022 — Bruen: A carry restriction stands only if the state shows a historical tradition behind it. The burden of proof flipped onto the government. → states must prove an 18th-century reason for every ban.
  • 2025–26 — The two suits: Byrna and ANJRPC apply the test to pepper launchers, knives, batons, sprays, and knuckles in the two most restrictive states.

Sources: Justia (Caetano v. Massachusetts), Fox News, Ammoland.

Caetano is the case about a person rather than a product. Jaime Caetano was homeless after a violent relationship, had obtained restraining orders that did nothing, and took a stun gun from a friend. When her ex-boyfriend, who towered over her by nearly a foot, cornered her after work, she displayed it and told him to leave. "The gambit worked," Justice Alito wrote in a concurrence joined by Justice Thomas. "He got scared and he left her alone." Massachusetts convicted her anyway, and its highest court affirmed on the theory that stun guns were "unusual" weapons outside the Second Amendment. Every justice disagreed (Caetano v. Massachusetts, 577 U.S. 411 (2016)).

Alito closed with the sentence both new lawsuits are trying to generalize: "If the fundamental right of self-defense does not protect Caetano, then the safety of all Americans is left to the mercy of state authorities."

Bruen supplied the test. Under it, a weapons law survives only if it is "consistent with the Nation's historical tradition" of regulation, and the state bears the burden of producing the historical analogue. The complaint in the New Jersey case digs up a 1771 legal dictionary defining arms as "anything that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another," and asks what 18th-century tradition banned carrying pepper spray or a stun gun. None existed.

What your carry looks like under current law

Whatever the courts eventually decide, today's map is already more permissive than most people assume. A September 2026 audit of all 51 jurisdictions by Recording Law, checked against 51 primary statutory sources, found that stun guns are legal to buy, own, and carry without a permit in most of the country, with twelve jurisdictions regulating them more like firearms. Pepper spray is legal for self-defense in all 50 states and D.C. per World Population Review, with conditions in sixteen of them.

Stun guns and TASER-style devices: 39 jurisdictions allow permit-free purchase, ownership, and carry for adults. Twelve jurisdictions require a license, background check, or fall under a device-specific possession statute: Hawaii, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Wisconsin, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, District of Columbia, and Mississippi.

Pepper spray (OC spray): Legal for adult self-defense in all 50 states plus D.C. Conditions apply in 16 states: AZ, AR, CA, DE, HI, IL, MA, MI, NV, NJ, NY, NC, RI, SC, WA, WI.

Common conditions to check before you buy: Wisconsin caps canisters at 2 oz. Massachusetts caps at 1.5 oz and requires sales through licensed firearms dealers. New York requires in-person purchase from pharmacists or instructors, with no shipping. California caps at 2.5 oz and bans pepper projectile launchers (litigation pending). Michigan has special rules for mail-order purchases. D.C. caps at 2 oz. Brass knuckles, batons, and some knives face separate category bans in many states — New Jersey's list is being litigated.

Stun-gun tiers from Recording Law's September 23, 2026 audit; pepper-spray list from World Population Review (September 2026) and Recording Law. City and county ordinances vary; verify locally before carrying.

"Legal to own" is not the same as "legal to carry anywhere." Every state keeps self-defense tools out of schools, courthouses, and secure buildings, and federal rules govern federal facilities and aircraft. New Jersey's problem sits off this map entirely, because the dispute there is about the reason for the carry. The Kelly rule makes the carrier's intent the offense, so even a fully legal item becomes evidence of a crime when carried in preparation for self-defense.

What happens if the plaintiffs win

If Schiller wins in California

  • California must allow sales of pepper launchers and rounds to civilians.
  • A ruling that pepper projectiles are protected arms becomes precedent in the Ninth Circuit.
  • Byrna has said New York is next on its litigation list.

If ANJRPC wins in New Jersey

  • Carrying knives, batons, and sprays in preparation for lawful self-defense stops being a crime.
  • Category bans (brass knuckles, blackjacks, switchblades, slingshots) fall unless the state produces historical analogues under Bruen.
  • Other states with "intent-based" weapons laws face the same exposure.

If the plaintiffs lose

  • A win for the states is plausible: one San Diego federal judge already upheld California's switchblade ban after Bruen (appeal argued before the Ninth Circuit in October 2026).
  • Appeals would push both questions toward the Ninth and Third Circuits, and possibly the Supreme Court.
  • State maps above stay as they are, likely for years.
Either way, these rules do not change: no carry in schools, courthouses, or secure government buildings; no carry past airport security (TSA rules govern flight); age minimums and felon prohibitions remain; private property owners can still bar weapons. A court win would widen the list of items you may carry, and leave these places and rules untouched.

Outcome scenarios based on the complaints as reported by Fox News, the Union-Tribune, Ammoland, and Knife Rights. No injunction or merits ruling has been issued in either case as of October 1, 2026.

The plaintiffs have real doctrinal wind at their backs, because Bruen puts the burden on states to justify bans with history, and Caetano already declared that stun guns count as arms. But this is not a foregone conclusion. The same San Diego courthouse where Byrna filed has split on post-Bruen weapons challenges: one judge struck down California's baton and billy club ban (now paused on appeal, with the Supreme Court weighing a related case), while another upheld the switchblade ban (Union-Tribune). Judges can, and do, find historical analogues for category bans, so a final answer is likely years away.

What you should do in the meantime

Is my keychain tool or pepper spray legal where I live?

In most states, yes. Check the two lists above: if you are in one of the twelve stun-gun jurisdictions or sixteen pepper-spray states with conditions, confirm the permit, size, or purchase rule that applies. If you are in New Jersey, assume the defensive-carry problem applies to everything until a court says otherwise.

I live in New Jersey. Does the lawsuit change anything for me today?

No. The law is enforced until a judge enjoins it, and no motion has been granted. The case is worth following (it was filed 10 days ago), but treat current rules as live. If your situation involves prior charges or sensitive employment, talk to a New Jersey defense attorney before carrying anything.

Can I take pepper spray on a plane?

Not in the cabin, and these lawsuits will not change that. TSA rules allow one container of up to 4 ounces with a safety cap in checked baggage only. Courthouses, federal buildings, and most stadiums and arenas have their own bans as well.

When will I know the outcome?

Watch for two milestones: a preliminary-injunction ruling in either case (the first sign of which way the court leans), and any Ninth Circuit decision on the related baton and switchblade appeals. Byrna has publicly said a California win leads to a New York suit, so a win would start a visible chain of follow-on cases rather than a single nationwide change.

Back in the Reddit thread, the New Jersey woman got her gear advice quickly: pepper spray, a good flashlight, an alarm. The commenters answered her equipment question in minutes. Her legal question may now be answered by a federal judge in Camden. Eight days before she asked it, four of her neighbors sued for exactly that right.

Note: This article is informational and is not legal advice. Weapon laws change and vary by state, county, and city. Verify current local law or consult an attorney before buying or carrying any self-defense tool.

Sources

Filed in: News, Second Amendment, Self-Defense Law
Next article Why a Stun Gun Flashlight Makes Sense