NJ Stun Gun law ruled Unconstitutional

[High Exposure 5,664]

In NJ, ANY penetrating injury is considered a significant injury. The probes fired from a CED are designed to penetrate the body.

 

Additionally, there is case law in NJ that defines "bodily injury" as nothing more than a stinging sensation from a light slap.

[NJGF 375]

In NJ, ANY penetrating injury is considered a significant injury. The probes fired from a CED are designed to penetrate the body.

 

Additionally, there is case law in NJ that defines "bodily injury" as nothing more than a stinging sensation from a light slap.

Interesting stuff. Thanks.

[mipafox 438]

"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.

Not sure if I am reading this right but it sounds like airguns of .38 caliber and larger would not be considered firearms. If that is the case, what is the NJ definition of a silencer? Does it have to be for a firearm? Because, if so, then integral silencers on airguns of .38 caliber and larger may also be legal.

[Zeke 5,504]

Not sure if I am reading this right but it sounds like airguns of .38 caliber and larger would not be considered firearms. If that is the case, what is the NJ definition of a silencer? Does it have to be for a firearm? Because, if so, then integral silencers on airguns of .38 caliber and larger may also be legal.

Paintball.

[mipafox 438]

2C:39-1. Definitions. The following definitions apply to this chapter and to chapter 58:

 

g. “Firearm silencer” means any instrument, attachment, weapon or appliance for causing the firing of any gun, revolver, pistol or other firearm to be silent, or intended to lessen or muffle the noise of the firing of any gun, revolver, pistol or other firearm.

 

http://www.newjerseygunlawyers.com/definitions-weapons-nj-2c39-1/

 

I think it may be legal.

[mipafox 438]

Paintball.

What about pellet guns .38 caliber and greater? It does not say only paintball anywhere in the definition.

[Zeke 5,504]

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.

The ATF definition is causing me displeasure.

But the SCOTUS ruling was for " possession "

Ownership and possession are different things.

 

 

What would be a proper name for just the shocker?( no explosion)

[Zeke 5,504]

What about pellet guns .38 caliber and greater? It does not say only paintball anywhere in the definition.

Only pellet guns I've seen are in .177 or .22. Your point is moot

[NJGF 375]

I had looked into a .45 or .50 caliber air gun at one point which are available.

[mipafox 438]

Only pellet guns I've seen are in .177 or .22. Your point is moot

Sorry, you haven't looked.

[NJGF 375]

Check out this site:

 

http://www.topairgun.com/45-cal-air-rifles

[Zeke 5,504]

I stumble corrected. My apologies.

 

Sooo who's gonna be a test case for that?

[NJGF 375]

Not I.

[NJGF 375]

I just checked and they don't ship to NYC, Philadelphia, Chicago, and of course New Jersey (as well as a bunch of foreign countries).

 

http://www.topairgun.com/shipping-info

[DirtyDigz 1,812]

Nolocontendre out with an update last night:

 

http://www.sdslaw.us/single-post/2017/04/11/NJ2AS-v-Porrino-et-al---Consent-Order-sent-to-the-Court-today-in-filing-by-NJ-Attorney-General

 

 

 

Today the New Jersey Attorney General filed an agreed Consent Order in federal court.  The Consent Order is not "final" until the federal Judge signs it and enters it, but the cool thing is that the State of New Jersey agrees that:

 

     1.   The Second Amendment guarantees individuals a fundamental right to keep and bear arms for self-defense District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008); McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010); Caetano v. Massachusetts, 577 U.S. __(2016).  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.” Heller, 554 U.S. at 582; Caetano, slip op. at 1 (per curiam).

 

     2.   Pursuant to the holdings in Heller, McDonald and Caetano, N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:39-3(h), to the extent this statute outright prohibits, under criminal penalty, individuals from possessing electronic arms, is declared unconstitutional that it violates the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and shall not be enforced.

 

Once entered, the Order reflects that the effect of the Order will be stayed for 180 days to "allow the State of New Jersey to institute new laws, rules, or regulations "that will impose reasonable limitations, consistent with public safety and the Second Amendment," on the possession and/or carrying of electronic arms..."  So, don't go out and buy a Taser in New Jersey yet, but hopefully that day will come soon.  Not bad for a "lay-up", eh?

[DirtyDigz 1,812]

The money shot from the consent decree - excuse me, I just need to see this on the screen one more time:

 

 

Defendants having advised the Court that, they, in their official capacities, and in light of the aforementioned recent United States Supreme Court decision, recognize that an outright ban on the possession of electronic arms within the state, regardless of the contextual circumstances surrounding any such possession, would likely not pass constitutional muster and enter into this consent decree and do hereby concede that the aforementioned statute banning electronic arms in New Jersey is unconstitutional.
 

[DirtyDigz 1,812]

I wonder if ANJRPC will even mention this in their next newsletter...

[NJGF 375]

Interestingly this is agreed to by both the AG and the NJSP.

[Fred2 367]

But, will you still need an approved carry permit to take one outside your house?

[djg0770 481]

Only pellet guns I've seen are in .177 or .22. Your point is moot

 

http://www.outdoorlife.com/photos/gallery/2015/07/invasive-iguanas-hunting-puerto-ricos-giant-lizards

[capt14k 2,052]

This is a step in the right direction. At least they are recognizing 2A Rights

 

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

[Shane45 807]

It s a trap!

[bhunted 887]

https://youtu.be/xK9xMMxJpdw

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[revenger 473]

The article on Ammoland.com states that the "honorable"  (yea right) Michael Shipp must sign off on it and provide direction?    This is the Obamabot who was stonewalling the SAPPA/Nick Purpura lawsuit.   What kind of direction can we expect from a deep state obamabot.

 

I agree with Shane45   its a trap.   The fifth columnists in the NJ legislature (Weinberg, sweeny) have a pretty good idea that CCW in some form is coming to NJ and other states that don't abide by the Constitution  and are taking the proactive stance to allow us and the citizens of the US  the ability to carry these stun things when national reciprocity happens.    This will be their way out of allowing us to carry actual firearms.  they will settle for the "lesser" of two evils.   

 

I for one don't wish to engage a hardened graduate of Obama university within arms reach.

[DirtyDigz 1,812]

Cry "trap" all you want, but this is a win.  IMO, even bigger than the lifting of the stun gun ban are these portions:

 

 

...the State of New Jersey agrees that:

 

     1.   The Second Amendment guarantees individuals a fundamental right to keep and bear arms for self-defense District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008); McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010); Caetano v. Massachusetts, 577 U.S. __(2016).  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.” Heller, 554 U.S. at 582; Caetano, slip op. at 1 (per curiam).

 

The state of NJ can't walk that back now.  The top LEO in NJ, in a written court filing, just stated that the 2nd amendment applies to individuals, guarantees a right to keep *AND BEAR* arms, and that it applies to all bearable arms.

 

That opens the door to repealing all of the "assault weapon" ban bullshit and is a huge wedge on carry/concealed carry.

[Downtownv 1,778]

I agree 100% they got the tables turned on them and i do not see any way out of it for the "Chosen Ones"

 

Here's a good related article from NJ2AS

 

http://www.nj2as.org/nj2as_wins_again_taser_ban_soon_to_be_lifted?utm_campaign=taser1&utm_medium=email&utm_source=nj2as

[Newtonian 453]

I have to give credit where it's due:

 

The Second Amendment guarantees individuals a fundamental 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.” 

 

If it's a trap as some have suggested it appears they have trapped themselves. "Guarantees" "right" "all instruments" and "even those that were not in existence" is pretty clear, explicit. It is unlikely that this court, knowing full well the legal fiction created by our legislature, upheld by other courts, and gleefully enforced by our police, would use this precise language with all manners of mumbo-jumbo available to them to avoid even addressing this case substantively -- much less ruling favorably.

 

On the face of it my best Armenian buddy has achieved more through this lawsuit than the combined efforts of every other pro-2A group operating in NJ up to this time. I am truly impressed. 

[jm1827 284]

I have to give credit where it's due:

 

The Second Amendment guarantees individuals a fundamental 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.”  As long as they are not transported outside of your primary residence and are not capable of firing more than 15 rounds without reloading

 

If it's a trap as some have suggested it appears they have trapped themselves. "Guarantees" "right" "all instruments" and "even those that were not in existence" is pretty clear, explicit. It is unlikely that this court, knowing full well the legal fiction created by our legislature, upheld by other courts, and gleefully enforced by our police, would use this precise language with all manners of mumbo-jumbo available to them to avoid even addressing this case substantively -- much less ruling favorably.

 

On the face of it my best Armenian buddy has achieved more through this lawsuit than the combined efforts of every other pro-2A group operating in NJ up to this time. I am truly impressed. 

 

 

Fixed the first quote for you-

[Newtonian 453]

Fixed the first quote for you-

Ah but they didn't write that. They could have added the obligatory tribute to NJ laws: "...within the reasonable limitations enacted by the legislature to assure public safety, ..." They didn't. Write that 100 times. Long hand. They didn't. YUGE.

[Mrs. Peel 7,157]

I have to give credit where it's due:

 

The Second Amendment guarantees individuals a fundamental 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.” 

 

If it's a trap as some have suggested it appears they have trapped themselves. "Guarantees" "right" "all instruments" and "even those that were not in existence" is pretty clear, explicit. It is unlikely that this court, knowing full well the legal fiction created by our legislature, upheld by other courts, and gleefully enforced by our police, would use this precise language with all manners of mumbo-jumbo available to them to avoid even addressing this case substantively -- much less ruling favorably.

 

On the face of it my best Armenian buddy has achieved more through this lawsuit than the combined efforts of every other pro-2A group operating in NJ up to this time. I am truly impressed. 

 

I agree that the wording is damning for Sweeney and her ilk. It will be difficult to maneuver around that (though they'll surely make a Herculean attempt)!

 

However, what's with that last line on your post? Seriously, just curious. I haven't followed this case... and admittedly don't know the background of it AT ALL. But, a pro-2A group is clearly listed as a plaintiff on that document --- isn't it reasonable to share the credit for the win among both plaintiffs? I think we would all like to see 2A groups have MORE wins and BIGGER wins in this state, but I think it's also good to not be stingy with praise when there IS a win! Is there a back story here that says differently?