At the simplest level, today’s courts should find Tasers and stun guns covered by the Second Amendment for the same reason past courts have found TV and radio communications to be covered by the First Amendment and tapping telephones to be restricted by the Fourth Amendment: new technologies can fit old constitutional intentions.
On a more esoteric level, the “militia” mention in the Second Amendment signals that the right to bear arms is a need based right, not a natural right like free speech or privacy. The “militia” mention may have been the most “statesmanlike” example of that need to put in the first ever constitution. (PS. nobody needs a .50 caliber weapon to protect them.)
Given a constitutional right to bear electronic arms, legislatures would have considerably less leeway to regulate and restrict possession in public or in private because the threat to public safety in the opposite balance is so near zero.
Given the right, it is constitutionally questionable whether concealed carry could be banned at all. It could be argued that mandating open carry could put an “undue burden” on the right to carry electronic protection because many or most people might be too embarrassed – again, given that the trade off to public safety is minimal. Banning concealed firearms can be better justified because of the extreme danger to life that such weapons pose.
The right to bear electronic arms at home or in public can be argued to be more constitutionally protected in modern life than the right to bear firearms for hunting which in the twenty-first century may be more often a sport than a vital need.