According to a press release last Tuesday, those spearheading the initiative include the Firearms Policy Coalition, the Firearms Policy Foundation, and Matthew Avitabile, who is the mayor of Middleburgh, New York.

It all started when Avitabile, as an individual, wanted to purchase a Taser for self-defense. State law, however, notes that it is a misdemeanor to possess “any…electronic dart gun [or] electronic stun gun”— one of only five states that do so.

The suit, in return, asserts that New York’s law is unconstitutional as “defendants’ laws, customs, practices and policies generally banning the acquisition, possession, carrying and use of Tasers and other electronic arms violates the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution […], damaging Plaintiffs in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to preliminary and permanent injunctive relief against such laws, customs, policies, and practices.”

The Second Amendment, with its constitutional “right…to keep and bear arms,” usually pops up within the context of firearm restrictions. But as Ars Technica —a technology website—notes, the lawsuit comes after a Supreme Court document in March questioned the legal reasoning behind a similar stun-gun ban in Massachusetts.

The Court—as recorded in Caetano v. Massachusetts —did not say that the statute, which carries a prison sentence of up to two and a half years, was entirely unconstitutional. But while Massachusetts claimed that it was justified since the Founding Fathers never anticipated Tasers (among other reasons), the justices said that this contradicted numerous precedents—including DC v. Heller , the landmark case which overturned a ban on handgun possession within the home. However, the original criminal case came to a stunning halt in July when the state decided to drop its charges against a woman who violated the ban.

Drawing upon this history, the plaintiffs in New York now cite Heller in their complaint, arguing that the state “may not completely ban the keeping and bearing of arms for self-defense that are not unusually dangerous, deny individuals the right to carry arms in non-sensitive places, deprive individuals of the right to keep or carry arms in an arbitrary and capricious manner, or impose regulations on the right to keep and carry arms that are inconsistent with the Second Amendment.”

And Brandon Combs, chairman of the FPF and the FPC’s president, said in a Tuesday press release: “The Second Amendment absolutely protects the right of law-abiding people to buy and possess all arms in common use for self-defense, like Tasers. We are more than happy to remind New York that the right to keep and bear arms prevails over paternalistic and unconstitutional statutes like theirs.”

New York state attorney general Eric Schneiderman declined to comment on the case when asked by a local NBC affiliate on Thursday.