Answering the Door with a Machete

[SJG 253]

Court Overturns Conviction for Answering Door With Machete

 

Michael Booth, New Jersey Law Journal

June 8, 2017    | 1 Comments 

SHARE

PRINT

REPRINTS

NJ Supreme Court Justice Faustino J. Fernandez-Vina. Photo: Carmen Natale/ALM

New Jersey residents have the right to walk around their homes and answer the door with a weapon—including those other than firearms—so long as they are not using them in a threatening manner unless they believe they are in danger, the state Supreme Court ruled.

In a unanimous ruling Thursday, the court overturned the conviction and 540-day prison sentence of a Monmouth County man, Crisoforo Montalvo, who answered the door of his apartment while holding a machete.

Holding a weapon, like a machete, in one's home is protected by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as is carrying a firearm, wrote Justice Faustino Fernandez-Vina in the ruling.

"We need only to observe that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to possess weapons, including machetes, in the home for self-defense purposes," Fernandez-Vina said. "Persons may lawfully possess weapons in their homes, even if possession of those same weapons may not be manifestly appropriate outside the home.

 

 

"Using a twelve-inch steak knife in the kitchen to prepare dinner is lawful and possessing it as a means of defense in case of a home invasion is lawful as well; carrying the same knife on the street on the way to pick up groceries may not be manifestly appropriate," he said.

[bhunted 887]

What the Frack!!! 540 day conviction. This state is so truly fooked up beyond help! I need to expedite my moving.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[maintenanceguy 510]

Notice the careful dance around the issue of carrying a weapon outside the home.  The judge knows it's protected by the 2nd but doesn't want to say it's legal.  He wants to hint that it isn't legal - without saying it.  So he just says that having a weapon outside the home "may not be" "manifestly appropriate".  I mean, who knows what that pesky old Constitution means anyway?  I'm just a Supreme Court Justice. I'm as baffled about the whole thing as anybody else. 

[tattooo 220]

What the Frack!!! 540 day conviction. This state is so truly fooked up beyond help! I need to expedite my moving.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

Couldn't agree more

Sent from my SM-G925P using Tapatalk

[GRIZ 3,369]

48 minutes ago, maintenanceguy said:

Notice the careful dance around the issue of carrying a weapon outside the home.  The judge knows it's protected by the 2nd but doesn't want to say it's legal.  He wants to hint that it isn't legal - without saying it.  So he just says that having a weapon outside the home "may not be" "manifestly appropriate".  I mean, who knows what that pesky old Constitution means anyway?  I'm just a Supreme Court Justice. I'm as baffled about the whole thing as anybody else. 

Judge isn't dancing around any issue.  The only issue appellate judges rule on is the issue brought forth in the appeal.  Here it is if possession of the machete in the home was legal.  That's the issue.  The judge acted appropriately.

[jackandjill 683]

22 hours ago, GRIZ said:

Judge isn't dancing around any issue.  The only issue appellate judges rule on is the issue brought forth in the appeal.  Here it is if possession of the machete in the home was legal.  That's the issue.  The judge acted appropriately.

 "Persons may lawfully possess weapons in their homes, even if possession of those same weapons may not be manifestly appropriate outside the home."

 

Dont think so. Unless someone show me otherwise, the topic of "possession outside the home" was neither at issue nor the panel was asked to rule / comment on.  That little nugget was slipped in, on purpose. Judge should have kept his little finger to the question at hand. 

[jackandjill 683]

I pulled up the story on my beloved nj.com... Everyone must read the article to understand silliness, stupidity and outright illegal (as its against US Constitution) activity across NJ legal system. 

1. Everyone from responding LEO, their superiors, the prosecutor and a Judge proceeded to participate in the drama what was supposed to be a no-brainer from get-go. 

2. self defense for first count but not for second ? To an untrained eye, it would appear that the NJ Judges doesnt want to come out as Traitors to the Constitution, so they give pass on one but not other ? 

3. If I am reading correctly, you are unlawful possession of a weapon (according to a trial Judge), unless its a case of spontaneous and compelling danger ?  So I guess you cannot carry a weapon but ok to grab one and shoot someone in a spontaneous situation.  This may be answer to all those "can my wife use my firearm .." questions. 

 

Wonder how some of these people in position of legal authority sleep at night. 

 

Full Case: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/nj-supreme-court/1863588.html

 

---------------

Daleckis called the police and Montalvo was arrested. He went on trial on two felonies, possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose and unlawful possession of a weapon.

The trial judge's instructions to the jury included a self defense instruction on the first count, but not on the second. And during deliberations, the jury sent the judge note asking about self defense.

The judge answered by reading from case law that that described self defense being limited to "cases of spontaneous and compelling danger."

-----------------

[GRIZ 3,369]

1 hour ago, jackandjill said:

 "Persons may lawfully possess weapons in their homes, even if possession of those same weapons may not be manifestly appropriate outside the home."

 

Dont think so. Unless someone show me otherwise, the topic of "possession outside the home" was neither at issue nor the panel was asked to rule / comment on.  That little nugget was slipped in, on purpose. Judge should have kept his little finger to the question at hand. 

The "even of possession...." comment is appropriate to the decision.  Walking around your house naked is legal but "manifestly inappropriate outside the home".

[jackandjill 683]

13 minutes ago, GRIZ said:

The "even of possession...." comment is appropriate to the decision.  Walking around your house naked is legal but "manifestly inappropriate outside the home".

You said "The only issue appellate judges rule on is the issue brought forth in the appeal. ".  Was the issue of possession outside home or its "manifestly appropriate" manner outside raised infront of court ? If anything, from the original case, it was undisputed that the person stayed within his apartment area and did not step outside the boundary.

 

On the other hand, I hope that comment helps next victim of NJ anti-2A system if someone were to get screwed for opening their  door with handgun or HP ammo. 

[GRIZ 3,369]

11 minutes ago, jackandjill said:

You said "The only issue appellate judges rule on is the issue brought forth in the appeal. ".  Was the issue of possession outside home or its "manifestly appropriate" manner outside raised infront of court ? If anything, from the original case, it was undisputed that the person stayed within his apartment area and did not step outside the boundary.

 

On the other hand, I hope that comment helps next victim of NJ anti-2A system if someone were to get screwed for opening their  door with handgun or HP ammo. 

The judge was saying you can do something in your home that would be inappropriate outside the home.  He stuck to the issue.  The correct decision was made IMO.  The judge was not legislating from the bench.

You can tear apart a lot of decisions and comments to make them anti 2A.  I don't think this is one of them.  You apparently do.  Agree to disagree.