NJ Stun Gun Restriction About to Fall??

[SJG 253]

Based on this per curiam  U. S. Supreme Court decision, albiet a reversal and remand, I do  not see how NJ stun gun prohibition, could be constitutional. Something I have long advocated

 

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf

[Fred2 367]

Who wants to be the first person arrested for violating the law?

[SJG 253]

Not necessary, can be challenged via a declaratory judgment  action  by a prospective purchaser in a civil declaratory judgment action

[Oakridgefirearms 224]

Based on this per curiam  U. S. Supreme Court decision, albiet a reversal and remand, I do  not see how NJ stun gun prohibition, could be constitutional. Something I have long advocated

 

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf

So, could this also lay the ground work for a carry case? She was carrying the stun gun in public, not in her home. They seem to be saying Heller allows her to carry a self defense weapon in public.

[voyager9 3,434]

So, could this also lay the ground work for a carry case? She was carrying the stun gun in public, not in her home. They seem to be saying Heller allows her to carry a self defense weapon in public.

If I remember right the majority opinion didn't mention public, there was a minority opinion that agreed with the majority but went much further (I forget the term). Unfortunately that opinion is not binding.

[mipafox 438]

You mean dicta? I'm not sure minority opinion holds that (inexistent) weight.

[SJG 253]

The N.J. Supreme Court, likes to take baby steps,. Advancements in case law are usually incremental. This is why a stun gun case could lay the groundwork  for the State Supreme Court to eventually revisit justifiable need in the context of a public carry handgun case. If they were to favorably decide a stun gun case, it might provide the framework for a public pistol carry case. 

[voyager9 3,434]

You mean dicta? I'm not sure minority opinion holds that (inexistent) weight.

I was referring to Alito and Thomas' concurring opinion. While the majority opinion only addressed the points made by the lower court, those two went further.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/03/21/supreme-court-zaps-massachusetts-stun-gun-opinion/

[PeteF 1,044]

Based on this per curiam U. S. Supreme Court decision, albiet a reversal and remand, I do not see how NJ stun gun prohibition, could be constitutional. Something I have long advocated

 

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf

Well firearms are still illegal in NJ "except". Even after heller and macdonald.

 

What makes you think NJ has any intent of following the law?

[bobblackrifle 28]

Is it time for a lawsuit at the state level?

[JohnnyB 4,326]

Is it time for a lawsuit at the state level?

I think that is exactly what S.A.P.P.A. has been trying to do. The PRNJ does not follow any law that is not of their own making!

[bobblackrifle 28]

I think that is exactly what S.A.P.P.A. has been trying to do. The PRNJ does not follow any law that is not of their own making!

The SAPPA lawsuit is at the federal level in District Court. A lawsuit to the New Jersey Supreme Court directly might be in order.