They *should* be covered by the 2nd Amendment. Unfortunately, I haven't seen many cases regarding their Constitutional protection status, and they seem to be split. Without large organizations pushing the issue it could be a while before weapons other than guns are reviewed for protection at a high Federal level, and considering that even guns haven't really been "settled" yet ("keeping" them has to some extent, but "bearing" still needs strong precedent) I'm not holding my breath. I raised this issue once with my County Council representative (Elisa Diller) back in 2012 but never received a response.
One decision that I think made a good review of the subject was an appellate review in the case People of MI v. Yanna. The case's docket can be seen here:
http://courts.mi.gov/opinions_orders/ca ... seNumber=2
Here's a direct link to the decision:
http://publicdocs.courts.mi.gov:81/opin ... -final.pdf
This was a good amicus brief filed in the case:
http://www.volokh.com/wp/wp-content/upl ... amicus.pdf
The decision hinged on whether stun devices qualified as "arms" within the meaning of relevant constitutional protections. The judge decided that these types of devices do qualify for protection because they meet tests outlined in the Heller decision: they can be used either to strike at an opponent or to shield oneself in self-defense, are neither abnormally dangerous nor unusual as compared to other protected devices such as knives and firearms that are significantly more lethal, and are in common usage as evidenced by the great number sold. Because they qualify for Constitutional protection, complete prohibition of this class of weapon was ruled unconstitutional.
Unfortunately that appellate court decision isn't binding here, and other courts haven't been so favorable. The Supreme Judicial Court in Massachusetts (their highest State court) ruled just this year that a stun gun wasn't protected because it wasn't in common use at the time the 2nd was written. Article on that case:
http://www.universalhub.com/2015/court- ... -stun-guns
I would think this case is ripe for appeal since the justices' logic flies in the face of the very Heller decision they cited:
Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
So, they *should* be protected, but getting a court to agree could take quite a bit of time and $$$. I'm not sure how responsive the County Council would be to removing the ordinance now, and I guess the only way to know is to start asking representatives.