NJ Stun Gun law ruled Unconstitutional

[Zeke 5,504]

All that intronet dancing. YouTube and various links and I get a cheap seat? This blows

[High Exposure 5,661]

Lol!

 

I give you props for the clip from "Evolution". That was a pretty dumb movie, but that was by far the funniest part. I didn't think anyone even remembered that flick…

[Zeke 5,504]

It's a classic bro!

[Kevin125 4,772]

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

 

 

WTF...  Mass actually has a law on the books that makes Phasers illegal....

 

That's just wrong.

[Zeke 5,504]

Jean Luke would not approve

[High Exposure 5,661]

WTF... Mass actually has a law on the books that makes Phasers illegal....

 

That's just wrong.

[Zeke 5,504]

Oh shit, now that's funny!!!!!!!!

[brucin 923]

Lol!

 

I give you props for the clip from "Evolution". That was a pretty dumb movie, but that was by far the funniest part. I didn't think anyone even remembered that flick…

"Come on just lay there and take it like a man"

[Zeke 5,504]

"Dude that thing was huge"

" I want some ice cream"

[mustang69 505]

Did i read that right? The judge on this case is Michael Shipp, the same one that appears to have been removed from the SAPPA rico case? Sorry, i have no faith the judge will follow precedent given how he appears to have conducted himself on the SAPPA case.

[capt14k 2,052]

The Supreme Court decision in Caetano does not allow for carrying of stun guns. Basically it was just guidance for the Mass. Supreme Court that the complete ban on possessing stun guns is unconstitutional. The only issue answered by the decision is that bearable arms not in existence at the time of the writing of the Second Amendment are covered by the Second Amendment, nothing else. So states can still place all kinds of limits on stun guns as long as they don't outright ban them. Things will change and change soon, but this case changed nothing. There weren't even oral arguments in the case.

 

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

[quikz 34]

As long as the voters keep giving us the gift that keeps on giving. The NJ legislature will continue to do what they have been doing for over 100 years and counting.

[capt14k 2,052]

As long as the voters keep giving us the gift that keeps on giving. The NJ legislature will continue to do what they have been doing for over 100 years and counting.

Voting them out would be best, but NJ is filled with blood sucking Demokrats.

 

Next best option is for Supreme Court to settle Second Amendment once and for all. If Supreme Court rules right to keep and bear arms means all U.S. citizens protected under the Constitution have the right to own, possess, and carry all arms at all times no state, town, or even the federal government could pass a law infringing upon this right.

 

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

[ChrisJM981 924]

The Supreme Court decision in Caetano does not allow for carrying of stun guns. Basically it was just guidance for the Mass. Supreme Court that the complete ban on possessing stun guns is unconstitutional. The only issue answered by the decision is that bearable arms not in existence at the time of the writing of the Second Amendment are covered by the Second Amendment, nothing else. So states can still place all kinds of limits on stun guns as long as they don't outright ban them. Things will change and change soon, but this case changed nothing. There weren't even oral arguments in the case.

 

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

I'll wait for a decision before fully commenting, but I think this will set a huge precedent for particular firearm laws in NJ.

[djw2033 28]

what is the latest here?  any idea when the ban might be lifted?

[jtd771 18]

The ban might get lifted but there'll be a quick "fix" to the firearms code to clarify that Stun guns are to be treated like pistols. Therefore they won't be banned but you'll need a carry permit so basically still banned.

 

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

[Downtownv 1,774]

Ok who wants to be the Lab Rat?

[DirtyDigz 1,811]

Ok who wants to be the Lab Rat?

 

I'd buy one and keep it at home, but wouldn't advise carrying at this point in time.  People are still being charged for possession (even if the charges will likely get dropped at or prior to trial):

 

http://media.wix.com/ugd/c601ae_844abf0cf64046d6bef0476632227edd.pdf

[intercooler 41]

The Supreme Court decision in Caetano does not allow for carrying of stun guns. Basically it was just guidance for the Mass. Supreme Court that the complete ban on possessing stun guns is unconstitutional. The only issue answered by the decision is that bearable arms not in existence at the time of the writing of the Second Amendment are covered by the Second Amendment, nothing else. So states can still place all kinds of limits on stun guns as long as they don't outright ban them. Things will change and change soon, but this case changed nothing. There weren't even oral arguments in the case.

 

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

aaahhhem, awb not legal then is it...

here is why:

 

As the libs have struggled to take away freedom, they created a classification of weapons...clearly this implies that they have BANNED  bearable arms by a category. it's the same as a stun gun basically

oh boy, I see where this is going

[capt14k 2,052]

aaahhhem, awb not legal then is it...

here is why:

 

As the libs have struggled to take away freedom, they created a classification of weapons...clearly this implies that they have BANNED bearable arms by a category. it's the same as a stun gun basically

oh boy, I see where this is going

That seems correct to me. Based on the ruling a state can not outright ban a commonly used weapon. At the bare minimum NJ banned by name and even worse banned types will likely be ruled unconstitutional. If not the entire ban all together. This would at least allow us to own Plainfield Carbines or a neutered M1 Carbine. Personally I would never destroy a piece of history to own a M1 Carbine, but I would pick up an Iver Johnson Carbine. NJ would likely still be allowed to have restrictions under this ruling just not outright bans like we do now.

 

We have many tools at our disposal and soon we will have even more. In my opinion the absolute best method for overturning laws in all states and at the federal level that infringe on the Second Amendment and prevent future infringements would be to add a Constitutional Amendment that clarifies the Second Amendment. The best chance of that happening would be via Article V Convention. At the current rate we maybe able to in a couple years.

 

If Trump can get 2 even better 3 nominees to the Supreme Court then there will be no need for such a clarifying amendment. Just a proper interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

 

Via either method not only would NJ Laws be ruled Unconstitutional but so would the GCA and NFA. I really think that is where we are heading.

 

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

[gleninjersey 2,139]

BB guns are illegal to buy in NJ unless you have FID. I'm 99.7% certain will apply same laws to tasers.

 

Will have to have FID, won't be able to carry. We live in New Germany, not a free state.

 

Hope I'm wrong.

[NJGF 375]

I am not sure that a BB gun is the same as a Taser. A BB gun meets the definition of a firearm. I am not sure a Taser does though.

[Screwball 483]

I am not sure that a BB gun is the same as a Taser. A BB gun meets the definition of a firearm. I am not sure a Taser does though.

In this state only... just like blackpowder guns. That, in itself, is asinine.

[10X 3,296]

 A BB gun meets the definition of a firearm. 

 

 

No, it does not.  

 

NJ insists on treating them like firearms, but that does not make them firearms.    

 

Not any more than calling all semi-automatics 'assault weapons' makes them assault weapons, nor any more than calling all factory standard magazines 'high capacity' makes them high capacity magazines.

[Zeke 5,504]

ATF on stun guns

https://www.atf.gov/file/55511/download

 

27 CFR 178.11: MEANING OF TERMS (Also 179.11)

A hand-held device designed to expel by means of an explosive two electrical contacts (barbs) connected by two wires attached to a high voltage source in the device classified as a firearm.

ATF Rul. 76-6

[status of ruling: Active; Amplified by ATF Rul. 80-20]

The Bureau has been asked to determine the applicability of Titles I and II of the Gun Control Act of 1968 (Chapter 44 of Title 18 U.S.C., and Chapter 53 of Title 26 U.S.C. (National Firearms Act)) to a device known as the Taser, a hand-held device designed to expel by means of an explosive two electrical contacts (barbs) connected by two wires attached to a high voltage source in the device. Upon contact with an individual, a high voltage electrical charge is carried to the barbs by the wires which temporarily immobilizes the victim.

The term “firearm” as used in 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(3)(A) includes “any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive.” The Bureau has determined that the device is a weapon and notwithstanding the fact that the barbs and wires remain attached to the hand-held device after expulsion, these items are projectiles within the meaning of the statute. Since the projectiles are expelled by the action of an explosive, the weapon is a firearm under 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(3)(A).

With respect to the National Firearms Act, the term “any other weapon” in 26 U.S.C. 5845(e) generally means a weapon or device capable of being concealed on the person from which a shot can be discharged through the energy of an explosive. Such term does not include a pistol or a revolver having a rifled bore, or rifled bores, or weapons designed, made, or intended to be fired from the shoulder and not capable of firing fixed ammunition. Since the Taser meets the statutory definition, it is an “any other weapon” (26 U.S.C. 5845(e)).

Held, a hand-held device designed to expel by means of an explosive two electrical contacts (barbs) connected by two wires attached to a high voltage source in the device is a “firearm” within the purview of 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(3)(A). It is also an “any other weapon” under the National Firearms Act (26 U.S.C. 5845(e)).

In order to allow persons manufacturing and dealing in such weapons to comply with the provisions of Chapter 44 and 27 C.F.R. Part 178, this ruling will be applicable to such weapons manufactured within the United States on or after May 1, 1976. Such weapons manufactured before May 1, 1976, will not be treated as subject to the provisions of Chapter 44 and 27 C.F.R. Part 178. With respect to the “any other weapon” classification under the National Firearms Act, pursuant to 26 U.S.C. 7805(b), this ruling will not be applied to such weapons manufactured before May 1, 1976. Accordingly, such weapons manufactured on or after May 1, 1976, will be subject to all the provisions of the National Firearms Act and 27 CFR Part 179.

[NJGF 375]

No, it does not.  

 

NJ insists on treating them like firearms, but that does not make them firearms.    

 

Not any more than calling all semi-automatics 'assault weapons' makes them assault weapons, nor any more than calling all factory standard magazines 'high capacity' makes them high capacity magazines.

 

"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.

[10X 3,296]

"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.

 

 

You didn't provide a reference, so I assume that's the NJ definition?

 

The NJ definition has force of law here.  But it's wrong, wrong, wrong.  And it's not how the rest of the world defines 'firearm'

[High Exposure 5,661]

A Taser falls squarely within the NJ definition of a firearm, and as long as you live here, that's the definition you are stuck with. See post #57?in this thread.

 

Also note in zeke's post above, the ATF also classifies "Stun Gun" devices as a firearm.

[NJGF 375]

You didn't provide a reference, so I assume that's the NJ definition?

 

The NJ definition has force of law here.  But it's wrong, wrong, wrong.  And it's not how the rest of the world defines 'firearm'

 

I had a feeling that NJ was not a part of the rest of the United States. 

 

2015 New Jersey Revised Statutes

Title 2C - THE NEW JERSEY CODE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE

Section 2C:39-1 - Definitions.

 

http://law.justia.com/codes/new-jersey/2015/title-2c/section-2c-39-1/

 

f."Firearm" .......

[NJGF 375]

A Taser falls squarely within the NJ definition of a firearm, and as long as you live here, that's the definition you are stuck with. See post #57?in this thread.

 

Also note in zeke's post above, the ATF also classifies "Stun Gun" devices as a firearm.

 

"with sufficient force to injure a person." That might be the current definition but I wonder how the taser is a "less lethal" weapon if is designed to not "permanently" injure someone? I agree with all of this but then a spitball fired out of straw could be considered a firearm. I guess I shouldn't give NJ legislatures any ideas or straws will be banned from NJ schools.