Downtownv 1,764 Posted December 29, 2016 So an they be purchased? Carried? What did this ruling mean to us? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Krdshrk 3,872 Posted December 29, 2016 Nothing yet. http://www.njgunforums.com/forum/index.php/topic/84027-nj-stun-gun-law-ruled-unconstitutional/ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Downtownv 1,764 Posted December 29, 2016 Thanks for the link, my "search" didn't find that. Happy New Year! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SJG 253 Posted April 19, 2017 Note Stay in Effect for 6 monthsUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEYVICINAGE OF TRENTON________________________NEW JERSEY SECOND : HON. MICHAEL A. SHIPP, U.S.D.J.AMENDMENT SOCIETY andMARK CHEESEMAN, : Civil Action No. 16-4906 (MAS-DEA)Plaintiffs, :v. :CONSENT ORDERCHRISTOPHER S. PORRINO :in his Official Capacityas Acting Attorney :General of New Jersey,and COLONEL RICK FUENTES :in his Official Capacityas Superintendent of the :New Jersey State Police,:Defendants.________________________ :THIS COURT having received a verified complaint filed byPlaintiffs New Jersey Second Amendment Society and MarkCheeseman (Docket Entry 1), an Answer filed by Defendants(Docket Entry 18), a pending Motion for Judgment on thePleadings filed by Plaintiffs (Docket Entry 19), and a responseto Plaintiffs’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings adjourned byDefendants, the Attorney General of New Jersey and theSuperintendent of the New Jersey State Police in theirrespective official capacities; andCase 3:16-cv-04906-MAS-DEA Document 28-1 Filed 04/11/17 Page 1 of 6 PageID: 1832This Court finding that plaintiffs’ asserted claims in thismatter are whether, in light of the United States SupremeCourt’s recent decision in Caetano v. Massachusetts, ___ U.S.___, 136 S. Ct. 1027, 194 L. Ed. 2d 99 (2016) (per curiam), theyhave a right to possess a stun gun protected by the SecondAmendment to the United States Constitution, notwithstanding theState of New Jersey’s prohibition of “stun guns” (defined as“any weapon or other device which emits an electrical charge orcurrent intended to temporarily or permanently disable aperson”), by declaring that “[a]ny person who knowingly has inhis possession any stun is guilty of a crime of the fourthdegree,” N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:39-1(t); N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:39-3(h); andThis Court finding that a separate New Jersey statute, N.J.Stat. Ann. § 2C:39-9(d), among other things prohibits the saleor shipment of “weapons,” which are statutorily defined asincluding all “stun guns,” by declaring that any such person whodoes so “is guilty of a crime of the fourth degree,” N.J. Stat.Ann. § 2C:39-1®(4); andThis Court finding that New Jersey statutes define a “crimeof the fourth degree” as one imposing certain penaltiesincluding imposition of a term of imprisonment of up to 18Case 3:16-cv-04906-MAS-DEA Document 28-1 Filed 04/11/17 Page 2 of 6 PageID: 1843months and a fine of up to $10,000.00, N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:43-3(b)(2); N.J. Stat. Ann. § 43:3-6(g); andThis Court finding that plaintiffs’ prayer for relief intheir verified complaint includes, among other things, a requestfor an order enjoining Defendants and their officers, agents,servants, and employees from N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:39-3(h) to theextent it bans the acquisition, possession, carrying or use of“Tasers[®] and other electronic arms” (Docket Entry 1, Prayerfor Relief, § 1); and a request for an order declaring that N.J.Stat. Ann. § 2C:39-3(h)is unconstitutional and violates theSecond Amendment to the United States Constitution (Docket Entry1, Prayer for Relief, § 2); and an order declaring N.J. Stat.Ann. § 2C:39-3(h)unenforceable (Docket Entry 1, Prayer forRelief, § 3); and costs of suit, including attorneys’ fees andcosts pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988; andDefendants having advised the Court that, they, in theirofficial capacities, and in light of the aforementioned recentUnited States Supreme Court decision, recognize that an outrightban on the possession of electronic arms within the state,regardless of the contextual circumstances surrounding any suchpossession, would likely not pass constitutional muster andenter into this consent decree and do hereby concede that theCase 3:16-cv-04906-MAS-DEA Document 28-1 Filed 04/11/17 Page 3 of 6 PageID: 1854aforementioned statute banning electronic arms in New Jersey isunconstitutional.IT IS on this day of , 2017,HEREBY ORDERED THAT:1. The Second Amendment guarantees individuals afundamental right to keep and bear arms for self-defenseDistrict 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 thosethat 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 andCaetano, N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:39-3(h), to the extent thisstatute outright prohibits, under criminal penalty, individualsfrom possessing electronic arms, is declared unconstitutionalin that it violates the Second Amendment to the United StatesConstitution and shall not be enforced.2. N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:39-9(d)shall not be enforced tothe extent this statute prohibits, under criminal penalty, thesale or shipment of Tasers® or other electronic arms; and3. For good cause shown, any and all further proceedingsin this matter, are hereby stayed for a period of 180 days untilCase 3:16-cv-04906-MAS-DEA Document 28-1 Filed 04/11/17 Page 4 of 6 PageID: 1865such time that any necessary revisions to existing controllinglegal authorities may be implemented; and4. Plaintiffs are prevailing parties for purposes of anaward of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of suit pursuantto 42 U.S.C. § 1988, and within 30 days after the date of thisOrder, the parties will either come to an amicable resolution asto the amount of attorneys’ fees and costs, or the Plaintiffshall make application to the Court for resolution; and5. Nothing in this order shall constitute an admission ofliability, duty, or wrongdoing by any party or an admission thatany other statute, law, or any policy, practice, or procedure ofthe State of New Jersey, its officers, officials, employees,agents, or servants, at any time or in any way violated federalor any other law; and6. No other law, including but not limited to theremainder of N.J. Stat. Ann. 2C:39-1 et seq., shall be affectedby the entry of this Order.7. The effect of this Order shall be fully stayed for 180days 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 thepossession and/or carrying of electronic arms or “stun guns.”Cf. Moore v. Madigan, 702 F.3d 933, 942 (7th Cir. 2012).Case 3:16-cv-04906-MAS-DEA Document 28-1 Filed 04/11/17 Page 5 of 6 PageID: 1876______________________________HON. MICHAEL A. SHIPPUNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGEDated:Case 3:16-cv-04906-MAS-DEA Document 28-1 Filed 04/11/17 Page 6 of 6 PageID: 188 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Krdshrk 3,872 Posted April 19, 2017 The effect of this Order shall be fully stayed for 180days 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 thepossession and/or carrying of electronic arms or “stun guns.” So they have 180 days to try to take away the rights again. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Darrenf 422 Posted April 19, 2017 So they have 180 days to try to take away the rights again. Yep Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The brew guy 22 Posted April 21, 2017 Page 4 leaves me thinking there are 2 possibilities. 1) The state seems to have conceded that 2A exists and applies to "all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding" and it should be a no-brainer to use this to overturn justifiable need. 2) You will need to show justifiable need to obtain a stun gun permit. It could go either way... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jtd771 18 Posted April 22, 2017 #2, just like the condition of this state. Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites