You have the right to bear arms, but what about “electrical” arms or stun guns?

The intent of the Second Amendment is up for debate again. This time the controversy illuminates a modern-age quandary about whether "electrical" weapons like stun guns—or possibly even homemade 3D-printed weapons—are constitutionally protected.

One of the last substantial rulings on weapons came in the Heller case from 2008, when the Supreme Court overturned a District of Columbia statute banning handgun possession in the home. The top court said that such a law violates the Second Amendment, as does the law's prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. Fast forward to today, following the Heller decision, and every state allows people to carry firearms of sorts outside the home. Some states say OK with or without permits.

But what about electrical arms like stun guns, invented in 1972?  Are they covered under this line of Supreme Court reasoning? Currently, that isn't clear.