NJ Stun Gun law ruled Unconstitutional

[jackandjill 683]

10 hours ago, Zeke said:

Jus got off phone. The official stuff linked here stands. Other than 18 no restrictions on purchase... no school zones.

like a gun, if you use a tazer, expect prosecutorial scrutiny.

 

Another Green light for me

Found the link.

[1LtCAP 4,262]

On 11/26/2017 at 3:10 PM, diamondd817 said:

"it's a calling"?

Bullshit. I took the entry law enforcement exam back in 1991. There were at least 75 guys I knew taking the test that day. Not 1 of them was taking it because they wanted to "protect and serve" or it was their "calling". They wanted it for the pay, benefits, early retirement, and "fringe" benefits.

 

 

wait? don't most towns patrolmen start off less than 40k a year? that sounds like pretty shitty pay if ya ask me. for what a cop has to do anyway.

 

[1LtCAP 4,262]

On 11/26/2017 at 4:04 PM, diamondd817 said:

Those are the reasons. Just don't give me bleeding heart crap that I want "to protect and serve" or "its a calling" or "I want to make a difference". Save it for the interview.

although it's only one person......if you believe that "that" cop doesn't exist, c'mon down to my shop, and i'll introduce ya to a friend of mine. who joined camden pd(when they still had their own pd) for this exact reason. he's on another local force now, and does the same thing. he's not out writing tickets like mad. he doesn't wield his "godlike" powers like you seem to think all police do. for that matter, from all i see, no one on the force he's on does.

 i'd venture you had a bad experience with leo/

[1LtCAP 4,262]

10 hours ago, Zeke said:

Yes... no school zones

well that sucks. i drive through FOUR school zones otw work, lolol

[1LtCAP 4,262]

7 hours ago, AlexTheSane said:

What if you're sleeping and one of those temporary school trailers is picked up by a tornado and drops it on your house?  Does your house then become a school zone and then your stun gun is in a school zone?

this sounds like a question for the "ask voyager" thread

[fatty 241]

I know there are plenty of great LEOs out there, but there's nothing worse than an officer that's clearly on steroids and on an ego trip.  

[High Exposure 5,664]

I know there are plenty of great Lawyers out there, but there’s nothing worse than a Lawyer that’s clearly on cocaine and on an ego trip

I know there are plenty of great Drs out there, but there’s nothing worse than a Dr that’s clearly on Adderal and on an ego trip.

I know there are plenty of great mechanics out there, but there’s nothing worse than a mechanic that’s clearly on meth and on an ego trip

I know there are plenty of great contractors out there, but there’s nothing worse than a contractor that’s clearly drunk and on an ego trip. 

I know there are plenty of great politicians out there, but there’s nothing worse than a Politician that’s clearly on crack and on an ego trip. 

I know there are plenty of great waiters/waitresses out there, but there’s nothing worse than a waiter/waitress that’s clearly on heroin and an ego trip.

[fatty 241]

ok that came out wrong.  meant no disrespect HE - my apologies.  there are clearly worse examples of anything

[Downtownv 1,777]

Ok, back to the OP, regarding Stun Guns, can anyone post anything official ("the link")  again, for me as I am going cross eyed looking for it.

I have a print out of the AG Memo, that I keep with me, JUST in case someone claims they didn't get that info. If there's more I would print and retain that as well.

Thank you.

[jackandjill 683]

1 hour ago, Downtownv said:

Ok, back to the OP, regarding Stun Guns, can anyone post anything official ("the link")  again, for me as I am going cross eyed looking for it.

I have a print out of the AG Memo, that I keep with me, JUST in case someone claims they didn't get that info. If there's more I would print and retain that as well.

Thank you.

This ?

http://14544-presscdn-0-64.pagely.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/New-Jersey-stun-gun.pdf

 

[Downtownv 1,777]

26 minutes ago, jackandjill said:

This ?

http://14544-presscdn-0-64.pagely.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/New-Jersey-stun-gun.pdf

 

Thank you.

That, I have, was there anything else, that I missed?

[jackandjill 683]

12 minutes ago, Downtownv said:

Thank you.

That, I have, was there anything else, that I missed?

Dont think so. October 31 posts on this thread have some copy / paste of email someone received as clarification. But havent seen any "links" other than this.

[Krdshrk 3,877]

10 hours ago, 1LtCAP said:

well that sucks. i drive through FOUR school zones otw work, lolol

Here's where it gets to gray area.

 

The State Statutory Definition of School Zone

Title 39 of the New Jersey Statutes Annotated (N.J.S.A.) contains the laws that control every publicly maintained roadway, as well as the majority of laws that govern bicycle and pedestrian matters. It also includes two definitions for “school zone.”

N.J.S.A. 39:1-1  describes a school zone as:
1. The section of roadway adjacent to a school, or,

2. Where school crossings have been established in the vicinity of a school, upon which are maintained appropriate "school signs" in accordance with specifications adopted by the chief administrator and in accordance with law. "School crossing" means that portion of a publicly maintained roadway where school children are required to cross the roadway in the vicinity of a school.

-----------

Now the ruling for Schools for tasers says:

N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(e)(2) —possession of a stun gun while in or upon any part of the buildings or grounds
of any school, college, university or other educational institution without the written authorization of the
governing officer of the institution;

-----------

While a road may say "School Zone" that does not mean it's part of the buildings or grounds of the school...  at least by my interpretation. 

[jackandjill 683]

So, anyone carrying Tasers in NJ in their day to day life now ?

[Downtownv 1,777]

4 minutes ago, jackandjill said:

So, anyone carrying Tasers in NJ in their day to day life now ?

I posted Sunday at 4:01pm that I do.

[DirtyDigz 1,812]

5 minutes ago, jackandjill said:

So, anyone carrying Tasers in NJ in their day to day life now ?

Yup.

[Zeke 5,504]

13 minutes ago, Krdshrk said:

While a road may say "School Zone" that does not mean it's part of the buildings or grounds of the school...  at least by my interpretation. 

Agree. I should have said campus.

and court 

[jackandjill 683]

Can someone create a poll asking, given the development, if one carries Taser / StunGun on person in day to day life with possible responses as:

* Yes, concealed

* Yes, open

* Yes, only at home or place of work

* No (are you out of your mind?)

* Didnt know it was legal

(or anything else you can think of).

 

Without widespread use/exercise , my concern is that, further advancements become difficult in future.

[MacDan 20]

2 hours ago, jackandjill said:

So, anyone carrying Tasers in NJ in their day to day life now ?

For the most part yes. Trying to get used to it. IWB concealed. Don't need anyone to know and create more problems. Most of my friends that have gone out with me that I have asked had no idea so I must be doing it right. 

[capt14k 2,052]

Here's where it gets to gray area.   The State Statutory Definition of School Zone 

Title 39 of the New Jersey Statutes Annotated (N.J.S.A.) contains the laws that control every publicly maintained roadway, as well as the majority of laws that govern bicycle and pedestrian matters. It also includes two definitions for “school zone.”

N.J.S.A. 39:1-1  describes a school zone as:

1. The section of roadway adjacent to a school, or,

2. Where school crossings have been established in the vicinity of a school, upon which are maintained appropriate "school signs" in accordance with specifications adopted by the chief administrator and in accordance with law. "School crossing" means that portion of a publicly maintained roadway where school children are required to cross the roadway in the vicinity of a school.

-----------

Now the ruling for Schools for tasers says:

N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(e)(2) —possession of a stun gun while in or upon any part of the buildings or grounds

of any school, college, university or other educational institution without the written authorization of the

governing officer of the institution;

-----------

While a road may say "School Zone" that does not mean it's part of the buildings or grounds of the school...  at least by my interpretation. 

 

 

 

 Definition of a school zone in title 39 does not apply. That is for traffic and motor vehicle laws only. 

 

 

Just like 2C:35-7 for school zone does not apply. That is for drug offenses.

 

The section one must look to is the section which the law is found in. So only what is written in 2C:39 applies.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

 

 

[1LtCAP 4,262]

On 11/28/2017 at 11:58 AM, MacDan said:

For the most part yes. Trying to get used to it. IWB concealed. Don't need anyone to know and create more problems. Most of my friends that have gone out with me that I have asked had no idea so I must be doing it right. 

whatcha usin' for a holster?

[jackandjill 683]

Can someone explain why Taser / Stungun possession outside home does not fall under 2C:39-5(d) ?

 

-------

d.Other weapons.  Any person who knowingly has in his possession any other weapon under circumstances not manifestly appropriate for such lawful uses as it may have is guilty of a crime of the fourth degree.
--------------

[PK90 3,570]

It means if you carry a pencil with the intent of sticking it in a child's neck, it would not be manifestly appropriate.

 

 

 

[MacDan 20]

3 hours ago, 1LtCAP said:

whatcha usin' for a holster?

Blade Tech 

[DirtyDigz 1,812]

NJ2AS out with a detailed analysis/opinion on carrying and a ‘Taser Packet’ to send to your local PD and keep on your person:

http://www.nj2as.org/taser

[Downtownv 1,777]

Finally!

NJ2AS weighs in!

 

NJ2AS' Taser Victory: Separating Facts from Fear

Posted by Alexander Roubian 482sc on December 04, 2017 · Flag · Add your reaction

SPECIAL NOTE: This page will be updated as details surrounding our legal victory become available. When in doubt, please refer back to this page for the most up-to-date information.

 

Following Caetano v. Massachusetts, a case which the United States Supreme Court unanimously vacated a Massachusetts conviction of a woman who carried a stun gun for self defense, in August of 2016, the New Jersey Second Amendment Society (NJ2AS) filed a lawsuit against the State of New Jersey challenging their outright ban on stun guns and tasers (electronic self-defense devices). Since 1985 stun guns and taser were completely banned from acquisition, possession, and carry in New Jersey.

On October 22, 2017, after over a year of legal battles, the ban was lifted and residents of New Jersey regained their right to acquire, possess, and carry an electronic self-defense device if one were to go by the letter of the relevant statutes.  However, there is a complication because of the language in a case called State v. Kelly (it is important to note that State v. Kelly is a pre Heller decision from 1990).  In the decision of this case, the judge said the following:

 

"Although defendant correctly argues that the circumstances surrounding the possession of an instrument must be considered in determining whether the possession is appropriate, defendant clearly admitted to possessing the carpet cutter as a weapon, not as a work-related instrument. As a matter of public policy, by criminalizing possession of weapons in anticipation of a future need for self-defense, the Legislature intended to keep instruments from being used as weapons. Hence, we hold that section 5d prohibits the possession of implements as weapons, even if possessed for precautionary purposes, except in situations of immediate and imminent danger.

Accordingly, the trial court's instruction to the jury that "one may not arm himself or herself with a weapon in anticipation of a possible need to use that weapon" was correct under the circumstances of the case. Defendant's possession of the weapon did not fall within the Harmon immediate danger exception."

 

Under New Jersey’s weapons laws - beyond electronic self-defense devices- there’s a prohibition on daggers, slingshots, clubs, and stilettos, etc. Specifically, it says you cannot possess any of the aforementioned in New Jersey without an “explainable” or “manifestly appropriate” purpose in accordance with two areas of NJ law - 2C:39-5d and 2C:39-3e:

 

2C:39-3e.   Certain weapons.  Any person who knowingly has in his possession any gravity knife, switchblade knife, dagger, dirk, stiletto, billy, blackjack, metal knuckle, sandclub, slingshot, cestus or similar leather band studded with metal filings or razor blades imbedded in wood, ballistic knife, without any explainable lawful purpose, is guilty of a crime of the fourth degree.

 

2C:39-5d.   Other weapons.  Any person who knowingly has in his possession any other weapon under circumstances not manifestly appropriate for such lawful uses as it may have is guilty of a crime of the fourth degree.

 

The Judge in our lawsuit's case specifically states in his order: "The Second Amendment guarantees individuals the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.  Further, the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding." (internal quotations an citations omitted).  

 

In our opinion, this acknowledges that "self-defense" is a "manifestly appropriate" purpose for a stun gun or taser (and other weapons).  But, since 2C:39-5d was not specifically addressed in our case, there is still a risk of being arrested and prosecuted.  We do not think that such an attempt to prosecute would be successful in light of Heller, but we also understand that that is little comfort for the person who ends up being the test case. 

 

Our opinion is that this decision is a home run. Not only did the Honorable Judge Shipp say it is herby ordered that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms but it extends to all bearable arms. The judge used the term "self-defense" and "all bearable arms" so therefore self-defense is a manifestly appropriate purpose for possession of all bearable arms, even in NJ. The decision by the Judge, in our view, clearly indicates that self-defense is a manifestly appropriate purpose. This is a slam dunk.  However, this does not mean that all of law enforcement and all prosecutors agree with us, and even if they did, that they would not test it at the expense of an innocent person.  Because the judge did not specifically overrule Kelly, there is a risk.

 

You might be wondering why 2C:39-5d does not apply to firearms, or to pepper spray?  Firearms are specifically addressed in 2C:39-5a, b and c.  They may only be possessed with a permit or under one of the exemptions in 2C:39-5 et. sq. and 2C:39-6 et. sq.  We all know the firearms exemptions, but there is also a specific exemption for pepper spray in 2C:39-6i(1)

 

i. (1) Nothing in N.J.S.2C:39-5 shall be construed to prevent any person who is 18 years of age or older and who has not been convicted of a crime, from possession for the purpose of personal self-defense of one pocket-sized device which contains and releases not more than three-quarters of an ounce of chemical substance not ordinarily capable of lethal use or of inflicting serious bodily injury, but rather, is intended to produce temporary physical discomfort or disability through being vaporized or otherwise dispensed in the air. Any person in possession of any device in violation of this subsection shall be deemed and adjudged to be a disorderly person, and upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by a fine of not less than $100. (emphasis added)

 

You may also be wondering why someone can carry a knife or some other weapon without fear of being arrested.  To be clear, possession of anything that can be used as a weapon is not without risk.  That risk is mitigated, however, by the fact that a knife has at least one manifestly appropriate purpose... opening packages, for example, whereas, a taser has but one purpose - self-defense - and as we will explain, that isn't a valid reason under State v. Kelly. 

 

You may have noticed that some people are trying to make a distinction between possessing a taser in the home vs. outside of the home.  It is important to understand that the two NJ weapons laws that we are talking about here (listed above) are not subject to the exemptions that we have become accustomed to for firearms.  If, for argument's sake, the opinions that we have seen from other attorneys that this decision does not allow a person to carry a taser, that would include all means of possession.  For tasers, possession is possession.  There is no difference between inside the home, outside the home, unloaded in your trunk, etc.  Those types of exemptions do not apply to tasers.  Therefore, it is our opinion that such a view would turn this decision on its head.  This is one of the reasons why we feel that, in the end, after we have cleared things up, which may or may not take another lawsuit, this decision will be seen and honored as allowing possession of tasers and stun guns inside and outside of the home for self-defense. 

 

We cannot advise you that it is risk-free to possess a taser right now, however, if you decide that you are going to do so, there are ways to help protect yourself from being wrongfully arrested. It seems the Attorney General’s directive has not been received by many police departments and while NJ2AS contacted several departments, many were unaware of our legal victory and are still under the assumption that tasers and stun guns are illegal. We have prepared a packet that you can easily print at home and deliver to your police department to inform them of the changes in the law. It would be even better if you could send a copy to your police department through certified mail so you have a record of sending it and they will be officially put on notice (even though the Attorney General's Directive does this). Please keep a copy of the certification return receipt and send us a copy by e-mail. Also, while New Jersey is adapting to their citizens having an ability to protect themselves, it would be wise to also keep a copy of our packet readily available in the event you are stopped and questioned. You can read our letter, the NJ Attorney General's Directive, and Judge Shipp's Consent Order here: Please click here to download our informational packet.

 

We are extremely proud of our victory. Our lawyers and leadership team fought hard for constitutional purchase and carry of tasers so innocent women, in fear for their lives, will not have to wait for permission slips from the government to protect themselves. We all know the story of Carol Bowne and her outcome.  We have been told over and over to wait, don't do anything yet.  We have waited for years for those who are better funded to act.  We will wait no longer.  We have taken a giant step forward.  We have made the historic achievement of getting a Federal Judge to state that, in NJ, the Second Amendment includes self-defense and applies to possession of all bearable arms.

 

Moving forward, this is a golden opportunity and it is sitting right here in black and white due to our lawsuit.  Yes, they threw us a curveball, but we are not done, and we need your help and support to file more lawsuits and fight back! You can be part of the change by becoming a card-carrying member or donor by clicking here.

 

UPDATE: 12/01/2017

We received a copy of a letter from Senator Oroho and Assemblyman Space's office. They asked the NJ Attorney General if self defense is an appropriate reason to carry a taser. The NJ Attorney General's office responded with a cryptic letter and you can read their response by clicking here: Letter from NJ Attorney General's office. 

This is the package of Docs recommended to keep nearby:

https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/nj2as/pages/1232/attachments/original/1511735116/Tasers_Legal.pdf?1511735116

[Krdshrk 3,877]

Someone wanna give the TL;DR version?

[DirtyDigz 1,812]

20 minutes ago, Krdshrk said:

Someone wanna give the TL;DR version?

My invoice for the legal analysis will be mailed shortly.

Here's the key paragraph, IMO:

 

Quote

...

You may have noticed that some people are trying to make a distinction between possessing a taser in the home vs. outside of the home.  It is important to understand that the two NJ weapons laws that we are talking about here (listed above) are not subject to the exemptions that we have become accustomed to for firearms.  If, for argument's sake, the opinions that we have seen from other attorneys that this decision does not allow a person to carry a taser, that would include all means of possession.  For tasers, possession is possession.  There is no difference between inside the home, outside the home, unloaded in your trunk, etc.  Those types of exemptions do not apply to tasers.  Therefore, it is our opinion that such a view would turn this decision on its head.  This is one of the reasons why we feel that, in the end, after we have cleared things up, which may or may not take another lawsuit, this decision will be seen and honored as allowing possession of tasers and stun guns inside and outside of the home for self-defense. 

...

Let the debating begin anew!

[Downtownv 1,777]

Oh Boy!

Let's get ready to Rummmmmble!

[stuckinNJ 81]

Jeez, NJ just cannot allow for its citizenry to use any sort of self defense!