NJ Stun Gun law ruled Unconstitutional

[Schrödinger's cat 87]

Thanks for your work nolocontendere. A bit off topic but how are things like slingshots and automatic knives or daggers illegal, is that constitutional ?

[High Exposure 5,669]

I want y'all to be able to roll around with what I get to carry everyday. I've spent a bunch of my own money on this

Same here. I'm LEO, I carry everyday.

[ChrisJM981 924]

So wouldn't that render the entire NJ AWB unconstitutional?

 

Edit: Thought about it for a few minutes. I have a feeling there is a much bigger picture...

[Zeke 5,504]

Well my buddy clammed up pretty quick on this. To me that's telling.

[diamondd817 828]

Wow, first time anything in NJ has been ruled Unconstitutional. I am actually shocked.

[DirtyDigz 1,812]

Well my buddy clammed up pretty quick on this. To me that's telling.

What buddy, Zeke? What are you referring to?

[Zeke 5,504]

What buddy, Zeke? What are you referring to?

yeah, that's not gonna happen here.

[High Exposure 5,669]

yeah, that's not gonna happen here.

[Zeke 5,504]

 

yeah, that's not gonna happen here.

No dumbass, I'm not selling out my source.

Like seriously?

[Zeke 5,504]

You will eat crow.

And in 2 years I predict you will eat crow again

[bzer1 15]

Taser is a brand name not a type of device. The type of device is classified as a Conducted Electrical Device or CED in NJ. Taser classifies it as a Conducted Electrical Weapon or CEW.

 

By statute, NJ considers any CED/CEW a Stun Gun whether it can induce Neuro Muscular Incapacitation (NMI) - the ability to lock the muscles up so that the target can not overcome - or not.

 

Technically, a stun gun does not fire darts and works only on pain compliance. It does not have the ability to produce NMI. A Taser has the ability to do both.

 

A lot of factors have to line up in order for a Taser to get a desired effect. It's not quite as "point and shoot" as Taser Inc would have you believe.

Does the capacity of the Taser to act as a projectile type weapon make a difference or has that not been tested in the courts? Sorry if that's a clumsy way of asking, but it is a very interesting subject.

[Zeke 5,504]

Does the capacity of the Taser to act as a projectile type weapon make a difference or has that not been tested in the courts? Sorry if that's a clumsy way of asking, but it is a very interesting subject.

Well if it's NJ LE approved, or perhaps NJSP approved.

Hmmn, that's some approval huh.

[High Exposure 5,669]

Zeke, What source?

 

I just don't understand. If you don't want to "out your source" why even mention having one in the first place? Especially out of the blue, in such a random manner.

 

Anyway.....

 

I still don't know what I am supposed to eat crow over.

 

Nothing has changed with this public statement of opinion regarding the Constitutionality of a NJ law - the AG's opinion doesn't change the NJ law that is in effect. The State may decline to prosecute, but it is still lawful to arrest and charge someone with 2c:39-3h until a judge or some legislation is passed to say otherwise.

 

At this time Caetano v. Mass has no bearing on CCW or AWB laws in NJ. It should lead to a changing of the statute and remove "stun guns" from being prohibited in and of themselves in our lovely State, but that's about it.

 

Again, reading the Supreme Court decision for Caetano:

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

 

It appears that their decision dealt with Caetano's possession in terms of ownership of a weapon that is prohibited by statute in Mass. - not necessarily that she was carrying it on her person illegally at the time of her arrest. She was charged with Mass. Gen. Laws, ch. 140, §131J which bans entirely the possession of an electrical weapon:

(https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXX/Chapter140/Section131J)

Section 131J. No person shall possess a portable device or weapon from which an electrical current, impulse, wave or beam may be directed, which current, impulse, wave or beam is designed to incapacitate temporarily, injure or kill

Similar to being charged in NJ for 2C:39-3h - possession of a Stun Gun instead of 2C:39-4 - Possession of a legal weapon for unlawful purposes, or 2C:39-5 - Unlawful possession of a weapon. (39-4 is what you would be charged with for committing a crime with an otherwise legal weapon and 39-5 is what you would be charged with if found carrying a handgun sans CCW license).

 

Again, I would love to see Shall Issue CCW in NJ. I just don't think a public remark regarding the AG's opinion on a Stun Gun case is going to do it.

[Zeke 5,504]

I'm not gonna quote this.

You are a pain in my ass

[High Exposure 5,669]

Does the capacity of the Taser to act as a projectile type weapon make a difference or has that not been tested in the courts? Sorry if that's a clumsy way of asking, but it is a very interesting subject.

Well you have two choices for loaded capacity of a Taser - 1 cartridge, or 2.

 

X26 and the C models are only capable of loading a single cartridge at a time. The X2 (not sure if they will sell this model to non LEO) has 2 cartridges bays that can be loaded and fires in a semi-auto mode, automatically switching from one bay to the next after firing.

 

Remember, each trigger press fires 2 projectiles and both need to hit in a muscular area with at least 4.5" of speed between the probes for the best chance for it to work as desired.

 

Hmmmm..... to muddy the waters further...

 

If a Taser is considered a firearm by definition in NJ, and each trigger press fires 2 projectiles simultaneously, is it a machine gun?

 

Or....

 

Since the barrels have no rifling and each projectile has its own barrel, would it now be considered a short double barreled shotgun or even an AOW?

[High Exposure 5,669]

I'm not gonna quote this.

You are a pain in my ass

[Zeke 5,504]

I know you knew that wasn't gonna work.

A for eFfort

[DirtyDigz 1,812]

... If you don't want to "out your source" why even mention having one in the first place? Especially out of the blue, in such a random manner. ...

 

Exactly.

[Zeke 5,504]

Lol.this is not a cougar

[DirtyDigz 1,812]

Lol.this is not a cougar

 

[djw2033 28]

so beyond this whole pissing contest we have no started.. when do you think this will actually get in front of a judge to make legal?

[Zeke 5,504]

so beyond this whole pissing contest we have no started.. when do you think this will actually get in front of a judge to make legal?

Pretty soon

http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/11/ready_for_a_shock_stun_guns_may_soon_be_legal_in_n.html#incart_river_mobileshort_home

 

Kah Kah Kah HE

[Zeke 5,504]

And here is some more for that plate

http://www.nj2as.org/nj_attorney_general_surrenders_agrees_stun_gun_ban_unconstiutional?utm_campaign=ag1&utm_medium=email&utm_source=nj2as

[Zeke 5,504]

[ChrisJM981 924]

And here is some more for that plate

http://www.nj2as.org/nj_attorney_general_surrenders_agrees_stun_gun_ban_unconstiutional?utm_campaign=ag1&utm_medium=email&utm_source=nj2as

I couldn't care less about stun guns. Take this ruling and apply it to the NJ AWB, and the Hughes Amendment.

[Zeke 5,504]

I couldn't care less about stun guns. Take this ruling and apply it to the NJ AWB, and the Hughes Amendment.

I look at it as one more step in the right direction.

[springfieldxds 0]

im confused as to why this even has to go in front of a judge?  I mean wasnt Caetano Vs Massachusetts more than enough to say the law is clearly illegal here, the Supreme Court was pretty clear in saying tasers are protected by the second amendment and that specific case even revolved around carrying one

 

im no lawyer but i wouldve thought that the day Caetano Vs Massachusetts came out is the day NJ ban on possession is thrown out the window, is a ruiling by the supreme court not enough anymore or is this just a jersey thing? 

[PeteF 1,044]

Okay so even if they are legal, is it legal to carry them? If not what difference does it make? Its not like you will take it to the range to practice.

[Zeke 5,504]

https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/nj2as/pages/88/attachments/original/1479349777/Settlement-Letter.pdf?1479349777

[High Exposure 5,669]

Again, for the cheap seats - I never said the ban on ownership of a stun gun would not be lifted at some point.

 

I said that right now the law prohibiting the possession of a Stun Gun still applies. I said that until a judge makes case law with a decision abrogating the current law or legislation is passed changing the current law, it is still illegal for a citizen (even a cop) to own a stun gun.

 

I also said that I believe, based in the AG's statements, that the law would soon be amended to allow the ownership of CED/Stun Guns.

 

Now, neither of those news articles address the concealed carry of a stun gun - just the ownership. Again, my position was that any new interpretation of 2C:39-3h will allow you to own a stun gun. However, the AG's stated opinion that the ban on ownership is unconstitutional and the subsequent proposed change in the law does not address anything in 2:39-5, that would allow you to carry the device on your person outside your home for protection.

 

My final point in the discussion was this - My opinion Formed after having extensive experience with a Taser as a user and instructor in NJ and knowing where it falls under NJ use of force guidelines, I feel that the Taser is not an appropriate tool for self defense in NJ either in your home or on the street. If you look at the totality of the laws governing self defense by a citizen in this state, you would be better served with a firearm than a stun gun even when they become legal. In any situation where a stun gun is the right answer, a citizen would be obligated to retreat from that danger. In a situation where you are either unable to, or not required to, retreat - you would be better served using a firearm to protect yourself. Again, that is my opinion after teaching hundreds of NJ LEOs and researching dozens of real world uses of a CED by Officers and citizens alike across the country through the lens of NJ self defense laws.

 

Now, Pete's question is the important one and cuts to the heart of the matter. And my answer to that is I believe that after making the ownership of a CED legal, the ability to carry a stun gun will not be treated any differently than the ability to carry/transport a handgun in NJ. This is not to say I agree with this outcome or even want this to be the case. It is merely what I think will be the final outcome of this.

 

My plate remains empty at this time. If, however, the ability to carry a stun gun on your person in NJ, in the same manner as someone could CCW a pistol in a free state, I will roast the bird myself.