NJ Stun Gun law ruled Unconstitutional

[Krdshrk 3,877]

A taser should be carried in addition to a handgun, not in place of.

 

Well us civilians can't carry a gun anyway. It would supplement my mace and (last resort)emerson edc

 

Exactly - until we can actually carry a handgun in the state, I would carry it in conjunction with my Kimber Pepper Blaster and EDC Knife.

[High Exposure 5,664]

If you think the rules for carrying a Taser will be more relaxed than for carrying a handgun, you are out of your mind.

 

Look what LEOs in NJ have to go through to carry one:

 

Any cop can carry a gun.

 

But, to carry a CED (Taser X2) I need special written permission from my Chief, review by the AG's office, and hours of training, and multiple written tests. Even then, I can't own a Taser (the device is owned by the agency) and can only carry it on duty. Oh, I almost forgot - The Taser has to have a camera attached to it.

 

Carrying a CED is is more regulated than carrying a full auto carbine.

[Zeke 5,504]

Miata,

 

I have no idea if that device is any good. Taser makes good gear, but that thing is new. Additionally, right now the only devices authorized by the State of NJ for LEO use are the Taser X26 and the Taser X2. I don't know if any agency in the state that carries the X26.

 

Also, keep in mind that the civilian models are generally not as powerful voltage wise, but they run for a 30 second discharge, not a 5 second ride like LEO devices. If you think about it, and the differences between why a citizen would use a Taser vs a LEO, it makes sense. 30 seconds give a citizen a chance to run away to a place of safety after an unplanned depoliynent in self defense. 5 seconds gives LEOs a chance to take control of a potentially dangerous situation after a planned deployment with a rehearsed and trained response.

 

Another thing to keep in mind. A Taser is not a panacea for self defense. A lot can go wrong with a Taser deployment and it is not a substitute for deadly force - if that's what is warranted. A taser should be carried in addition to a handgun, not in place of.

Understand our POV . We all want swords, but if we can have a better pitchfork we will take it.

For now.

 

I have a very strong feeling things are going to change shortly.

[High Exposure 5,664]

Understand our POV . We all want swords, but if we can have a better pitchfork we will take it.

For now.

 

I have a very strong feeling things are going to change shortly.

This new interpretation may allow NJ residents to own a Taser, it will not allow you to carry one any more than you can currently carry a firearm.

 

So, to expand - you can't carry one on your person but you can have a Taser in your home. Great! Now what? There aren't exactly Taser ranges, they only go 15-25', they aren't very accurate and each shot costs $30. Not exactly a lot of fun factor going on.

 

Now, there's a bump in the night in your home where you can only use force to defend yourself and/or loved ones from significant injury or death, you really gonna reach for a Taser where if all goes well will give you a 30 second period of temporary incapacitation after which the offender can recover and continue his aggressive acts?

 

If I am defending myself in a life or death situation, I'm not using a Taser.

[Zeke 5,504]

This new interpretation may allow NJ residents to own a Taser, it will not allow you to carry one any more than you can currently carry a firearm.

 

So, to expand - you can't carry one on your person but you can have a Taser in your home. Great! Now what? There aren't exactly Taser ranges, they only go 15-25', they aren't very accurate and each shot costs $30. Not exactly a lot of fun factor going on.

 

Now, there's a bump in the night in your home where you can only use force to defend yourself and/or loved ones from significant injury or death, you really gonna reach for a Taser where if all goes well will give you a 30 second period of temporary incapacitation after which the offender can recover and continue his aggressive acts?

 

If I am defending myself in a life or death situation, I'm not using a Taser.

I feel you and I at looking at this class 5.1 climb differently.

You have the anchors established, we are lead climbing.

 

To translate : any move forward is a good move.

[High Exposure 5,664]

No need to translate. I spent 14 years climbing trad and Alpine style all over North America.

 

Now, to expand your metaphor - I think you are getting off route and straying into 5.11a territory on an offwidth crack with a long runout over sketchy pro, Some heinous rope drag, and all the confidence of being a solid 5.5 lead climber.

 

Not all forward moves are useful. Sometimes you need to traverse to stay on route.

 

A ceremonial "win", is one thing. Actually applying your WIN to real world situation is another story altogether.

[Zeke 5,504]

Hmmn, now let's ck your gear. Caetano Vs Massachusetts rulinig said you can not prohibit someone of using less then lethal force.

 

You and I know what force we would choose to use.

 

You pitch, it's similar to chess, but different

[High Exposure 5,664]

Ok, great. "Stun Guns" are allowed in NJ and you can use them in your homes. Cool! I'm all about the courts determine what I think is a bad law as unconstitutional.

But, before you cry out in victory over this injustice, how much do you know about Taser's, NMI, and how they actually work? When are you going to use it? How are you going to use it?

 

Stun guns don't work like on TV where you hit someone and they are knocked unconscious for 2 hours. They are simply a tool for pain compliance - think an electro-Stim machine from a physical therapist cranked to 100 - it hurts but it isn't knockout inducing. As soon as you lose contact, the effect - which is nothing more than a severe muscle cramping sensation - is over. Now say you got the right spot, with enough spread between probes, and successfully get NMI and the person locks up. Now what? You have 5-30 seconds to make your next move. What's it gonna be?

 

Now, define less than lethal force as NJ sees it? Currently, in NJ, less than lethal force can only be used if lethal force is justified as well. We are ten years behind in our use of force options in NJ.

 

The AG basically just admitted to unconstitutionally prohibiting a device that is basically useless in this state to anyone but police. It's no victory - It's a pacifier.

 

You want to run out and spend $1000 on a Taser in NJ, be my guest. It's a waste at this point in time.

 

You are approaching a false summit and using up all your pro - and unbeknownst to you, you still have half a rope length to get to your anchors. You are looking down, contemplating taking the king swing, and are reaching for some manky fixed gear to save your ass.

[Zeke 5,504]

You are not seeing the peak.

And that was way too long jus read first sentence.

Put yourself in my paradigm

[robot_hell 72]

Now say you got the right spot, with enough spread and get NMI and the person locks up. Now what? You have 5-30 seconds to make your next move. What's it gonna be?

 

This is an excellent point. Unless you're willing to carry around handcuffs to make... what, a citizen's arrest? It gets you nowhere.

 

Unless you can run very, very fast. But then you'd probably be questioned about why you didn't do that in the first place.

[High Exposure 5,664]

That's what the 30 second duration is for on the non-LEO models. The idea is you fire it at someone and then run away - giving you 30 seconds to get to safety. Where are you going to go in 30 second in your home that is any safer?

 

That's great out on the street - walking to your car in a parking deck, someone attempts to mug you so you give them Edison's Medicine and beat feet. Maybe it doesn't rise to the level "fearing for your life" but the tool is appropriate for the level of force required in a free state.

 

How does that work in a state that requires almost the same standard for deadly force before using less than lethal? It's literally the difference between the word Imminent and Immediate that gives permission to use less than lethal instead of deadly force.

[Zeke 5,504]

This is not the point.

I've jus completed 9 weeks with my new friends and your brothers and sisters. I am full aware of use of force under the AG constantly changing directives. This is more about applying Caetano vs Mass to carry vs less than lethal.

The fact the nj ag is recognizing this is very big

[High Exposure 5,664]

Caetano has nothing to do with actual carry of a firearm or Less than Lethal device. It simply affirms that the 2A applies to all common tools of self defense, even those that weren't available at the time the founding fathers penned the 2A. It's about ownership.

 

The NJAG is recognizing that, as per Heller and Caetano, a complete prohibition of the ownership of a common tool of self defense is unconstitutional. It has zero impact on changing the states draconian "justifiable need" laws or any lessening of the restriction of carrying a weapon outside your home for self defense.

 

The AG is just saying that they think you should be allowed to own a CED - their opinion doesn't even carry any weight at this point.

[Zeke 5,504]

You a lawyer bud?

[High Exposure 5,664]

I spent 9 weeks hanging out with some

[carl_g 568]

I don't think anything changes in regards to carrying a stun gun/taser.. back to your normally scheduled program.

[Vicious 138]

Just to reinforce what was stated:

 

 

There is some very poor/ deficient training at play there. Not Hollywood though.

[Zeke 5,504]

I spent 9 weeks hanging out with some

Ha ha! But did you sleep at a holiday inn?

[nolocontendere 22]

And check this out from the Party of 6 lawyer regarding their case challenging the stun gun ban (my emphasis added):

 

http://www.sdslaw.us/single-post/2016/11/11/In-a-baffling-answer-filed-by-New-Jersey-in-the-Taser-case

This is our case. I'd be happy to answer any questions.

[Zeke 5,504]

This is our case. I'd be happy to answer any questions.

1 are you suing for possession on person, or just ownership.

2 the mass case and the other nj case being discussed were about possession on person.correct?

3 when you win this suit, what exactly happens?

[nolocontendere 22]

1 are you suing for possession on person, or just ownership.

2 the mass case and the other nj case being discussed were about possession on person.correct?

3 when you win this suit, what exactly happens?

1: both

2: mass case was carrying and lambert was possession

3: NJ stun gun ban goes away.

[nolocontendere 22]

Oh. And stay tuned for some more NJ fun with lawsuits.

[High Exposure 5,664]

1: both

2: mass case was carrying and lambert was possession

3: NJ stun gun ban goes away.

3: Excellent.

 

In your opinion, will the end of the ban on ownership of "stun guns" allow the carry of the devices on your person?

[nolocontendere 22]

I don't think anything changes in regards to carrying a stun gun/taser.. back to your normally scheduled program.

That's a good question, but look through the code and find me where it says you can't carry a taser or stun gun. My only reference is that they are illegal. If they are now legal, where does it say I can't carry it?

[nolocontendere 22]

3: Excellent.

In your opinion, will the end of the ban on ownership of "stun guns" allow the carry of the devices on your person?

NJ will most likely try to attach justifable need to make it permitted carry. We are ready for that..

[Zeke 5,504]

Eat crow HE

[High Exposure 5,664]

That's a good question, but look through the code and find me where it says you can't carry a taser or stun gun. My only reference is that they are illegal. If they are now legal, where does it say I can't carry it?

Purely playing Devils Advocate here:

 

Wouldn't a Taser be defined as a handgun in NJ, based on the definitions of a "firearm" and a "handgun"?

 

"Firearm or firearms" means any handgun, rifle, shotgun, machine gun, assault firearm, automatic or semi-automatic rifle, or any gun, device or instrument in the nature of a weapon from which may be fired or ejected any solid projectile, ball, slug, pellet, missile or bullet, or any gas, vapor or other noxious thing, by means of a cartridge or shell or by the action of an explosive or the igniting of flammable or explosive substances. It shall also include, without limitation, any firearm which is in the nature of an air gun, spring gun or pistol or other weapon of a similar nature in which the propelling force is a spring, elastic band, carbon dioxide, compressed or other gas, or vapor, air or compressed air, or is ignited by compressed air, and ejecting a bullet or missile smaller than three-eighths of an inch in diameter, with sufficient force to injure a person.

A CED uses a device designed to be fired by one hand that uses compressed gas to fire a missle intended to cause injury by penetrating the skin - which in NJ is considered significant injury making, an aggravating factor in charging decisions.

 

So, just using the relevant parts of the definition of a Firearm in NJ you get:

 

"Firearm or firearms" means any handgun, or any gun, device or instrument in the nature of a weapon from which may be fired or ejected any solid projectile, missile or bullet. It shall also include, without limitation, any firearm which is in the nature of a pistol or other weapon of a similar nature in which the propelling force is compressed or other gas, or vapor, air or compressed air and ejecting a bullet or missile smaller than three-eighths of an inch in diameter, with sufficient force to injure a person.

 

^^^^ That's a Taser

 

So by NJ definition of firearm, even though they would now be legal to own, won't a CED be classified as a firearm (BB guns are, they work in a similar manner using compressed gas to fire a solid projectile small than 3/8" with the ability to cause injury)?

 

Add to that the fact that a Taser is designed to be fired with one hand, doesn't that make it a handgun?

 

Even though no statute specifically states you can't carry a Taser/CED won't the statutes that already prohibit the carrying of a firearm without a permit apply to the Taser as well?

[High Exposure 5,664]

Eat crow HE

Brother, I would love nothing more than to eat a big plate of Crow on this. I would love to be wrong and have this taser opinion by the AG open the floodgates to "shall issue" CCW in this state. I just don't see it. Maybe I am a pessimist.

[nolocontendere 22]

Purely playing Devils Advocate here:

Wouldn't a Taser be defined as a handgun in NJ, based on the definitions of a "firearm" and a "handgun"?

 

A CED uses a device designed to be fired by one hand that uses compressed gas to fire a missle intended to cause injury by penetrating the skin - which in NJ is considered significant injury.

So, just using the relevant parts of the definition of a Firearm in NJ you get:

"Firearm or firearms" means any handgun, or any gun, device or instrument in the nature of a weapon from which may be fired or ejected any solid projectile, missile or bullet. It shall also include, without limitation, any firearm which is in the nature of a pistol or other weapon of a similar nature in which the propelling force is compressed or other gas, or vapor, air or compressed air and ejecting a bullet or missile smaller than three-eighths of an inch in diameter, with sufficient force to injure a person.

^^^^ That's a Taser

So by NJ definition of firearm, even though they would now be legal to own, won't a CED be classified as a firearm (BB guns are, they work in a similar manner using compressed gas to fire a solid projectile small than 3/8" with the ability to cause injury)?

Add to that the fact that a Taser is designed to be fired with one hand, doesn't that make it a handgun?

Even though no statute specifically states you can't carry a Taser/CED won't the statutes that already prohibit the carrying of a firearm without a permit apply to the Taser as well?

Good question. I don't know the answer. We will have to see. Right now they are illegal, so opening it up will make NJ have to come to the table to tell us what they think.

[nolocontendere 22]

Brother, I would love nothing more than to eat a big plate of Crow on this. I would love to be wrong and have this taser opinion by the AG open the floodgates to "shall issue" CCW in this state. I just don't see it. Maybe I am a pessimist.

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