@Mrs. Peel

i do believe @PK90 has type @High Exposure  recommended.

but let’s be honest... tazers are like the Jean Luke Picard of firearms

23 hours ago, Sniper22 said:

The ruling on stun guns was back in November. The new magazine bill was introduced in February, with the stun gun clause in it?

If it was still on the books, why duplicate it?

The legislature didn't write a new law from scratch, they modified sections of the existing law. The stun gun wording is still there from years ago and is still unconstitutional.

53 minutes ago, Oakridgefirearms said:

The legislature didn't write a new law from scratch, they modified sections of the existing law. The stun gun wording is still there from years ago and is still unconstitutional.

I'm not trying to argue, I'm trying to understand this process. The magazine bill was introduced Feb. 1, 2018. I don't know if it was a "cut and paste" from parts of a past bill, or something new. Isn't the "introduced date" a Start point for a bill?

https://legiscan.com/NJ/text/A2761/2018

Also, even if it was a cut and paste, it was voted on and signed by Murphy two weeks ago, so what is the legality of it? I understand that there are old laws on the books (as stated above), and new ones get written.

Why would the Dems let an unconstitutional law (knocked down last November) still be inserted into a new bill?? Doesn't anyone in Trenton proofread?

 

6 minutes ago, Sniper22 said:

I'm not trying to argue, I'm trying to understand this process. The magazine bill was introduced Feb. 1, 2018. I don't know if it was a "cut and paste" from parts of a past bill, or something new. Isn't the "introduced date" a Start point for a bill?

https://legiscan.com/NJ/text/A2761/2018

Also, even if it was a cut and paste, it was voted on and signed by Murphy two weeks ago, so what is the legality of it? I understand that there are old laws on the books (as stated above), and new ones get written.

Why would the Dems let an unconstitutional law (knocked down last November) still be inserted into a new bill?? Doesn't anyone in Trenton proofread?

 

Not arguing either........

 

When they change an existing law like this, typically they copy entirely the wording of the original law and then add or eliminate sections to get the result they want. I think they just didn't bother to eliminate stun gun language - maybe because they would be admitting defeat on that one? Or maybe just laziness?

 

NJ carry laws could be easily changed by removing the "justifiable need" language and replace it with shall issue language - but we all know that isn't going to happen as long as these asshats are in control in Trenton.

53 minutes ago, Oakridgefirearms said:

When they change an existing law like this, typically they copy entirely the wording of the original law and then add or eliminate sections to get the result they want.

What existing law was changed? Was this the 15 round law from decades ago that they just changed to 10? Or something else?

 

Check out  https://www.safetyman.co/schedule-taser-training-and-sale. He does taser training and sales

I might carry one, I might not. I am confident of the legality of my choice. 

23 hours ago, Sniper22 said:

What existing law was changed? Was this the 15 round law from decades ago that they just changed to 10? Or something else?

 

Basically yes, the part that deals with magazine restrictions is the law from 1990 - If you read the bill you will also see it mentions the AWB list from 1990 as well as older sections that date back to 1966 when the FPID card and Handgun Purchase Permits were created, some sections of the law are likely a lot older than that as well. I noticed the Bump Stock ban from January is also mentioned.

On 6/21/2018 at 9:34 PM, Oakridgefirearms said:

The legislature didn't write a new law from scratch, they modified sections of the existing law. The stun gun wording is still there from years ago and is still unconstitutional.

Odd, but it still leaves residents open to malicious prosecution, and Im sure many county and local prosecuters will press charges with a smile.  You will go broke defending yourself. 

Thank you for contacting Attorney General Grewal regarding regulation changes for taser/stun gun use.

 

As of October 22, 2017, in accordance with a Consent Order entered in the United States District Court, prior statutory prohibitions against selling or possessing stun guns in New Jersey have been declared unconstitutional.  By virtue of this ruling, New Jersey is now on similar footing as 39 other states that allow stun guns with limited or no restrictions so, unless there is a change to the law, no permit or license will be required to obtain or possess a stun gun.  However, the State Police have adopted a rule effective January 2, 2018 prohibiting minors under the age of 18 from obtaining or possessing stun guns.   In addition to this regulation, current statutory provisions that establish restrictions on stun guns remain in force and effect, including laws that prohibit felons and incompetent persons from possessing stun guns, possession on school grounds, possession for an unlawful purpose, and possession under circumstances not manifestly appropriate for such lawful uses as a stun gun may have.  

                

This response is not intended as legal advice but is offered for informational purposes only.  Unless the law is changed, New Jersey law contains no permitting or similar requirement that must be satisfied in order to possess a stun gun (whether at home or in public).  And, as previously indicated, there are limitations under the current law which are not affected by the Consent Order.  You may wish to consult a private attorney should you require legal advice on this issue.

 

Thank you again for writing.

 

Sincerely,

 

 

Jonathan J. Pantano

Citizens Services and Relations

Office of the Attorney General

 

 

 

 

thats wht why I got in June 20th from AG office.

Well I hope that clears up the stun gun issue, but in the future I would avoid contacting AG or NJSP with the current Administration we have.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Why is that ? 

23 minutes ago, djw2033 said:

thats wht why I got in June 20th from AG office.

Well, that certainly helps!

 

Predatory Policing is the new Peonage of old.  Do not carry a stun gun or taser at all!

Even though there is more to the story.  I was stopped Sunday, September 16 in Boonton and charged under 2C:39-3H.  They were adamant that carrying stun guns were not legal.  I was adamant that it became legal in November or December of last year.  If, it were not, I would never have purchased, etc.

 

 

Predatory Policing is the new Peonage of old.  Do not carry a stun gun or taser at all!
Even though there is more to the story.  I was stopped Sunday, September 16 in Boonton and charged under 2C:39-3H.  They were adamant that carrying stun guns were not legal.  I was adamant that it became legal in November or December of last year.  If, it were not, I would never have purchased, etc.
 
 

Prosecutor will drop charges.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Patti, sorry to hear you’ve been charged,  thanks for sharing what happened to you and please keep us informed how the charges progress.

 

@Patti - see my PM. Thx!

Patti,
All the PDs were informed of the legality of stun guns. You need to sue the piss out of them for false arrest.

Sent from an undisclosed location via Tapatalk

1 minute ago, PK90 said:

Patti,
All the PDs were informed of the legality of stun guns. You need to sue the piss out of them for false arrest.

Sent from an undisclosed location via Tapatalk
 

Charges will be dropped.. but if the “ more to the story “ is you tased someone.. that’s going to court.

5 minutes ago, Zeke said:

Charges will be dropped.. but if the “ more to the story “ is you tased someone.. that’s going to court.

Ahhhh,,,,. that "more to the story" part is usually the key part.

 

2 minutes ago, Sniper22 said:

Ahhhh,,,,. that "more to the story" part is usually the key part.

 

The way this was explained to me by CLEO and CO prosecutor.. same as carrying a baseball bat with restrictions.. until you hit someone.. then it’s up to court for viability of self defense.. but these are typically municipal matters.

Ahhhh,,,,. that "more to the story" part is usually the key part.
 

Even if used why should that be an issue if it was in self defense. Kind of pointless to carry if you can't use it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

It would behove individuals to become familiar with use of force for sd.. if you choose lethal or “ less than lethal “ .

As a grown adult it is incumbent  on you to know the consequences of your actions. 

 

And in no way I’m saying that’s “ the more to the story “..

10 hours ago, Patti said:

Predatory Policing is the new Peonage of old.  Do not carry a stun gun or taser at all!

Even though there is more to the story.  I was stopped Sunday, September 16 in Boonton and charged under 2C:39-3H.  They were adamant that carrying stun guns were not legal.  I was adamant that it became legal in November or December of last year.  If, it were not, I would never have purchased, etc.

 

 

Effective Oct. 20,2017 9As per NJ AG's official letter - 2C:39-3(h) & 2C:39-9(d) have been ruled unconstitutional & no longer as crime in New Jersey UNLESS - you happen to violate the following:

2C:39-4(d), 2C:39-4.1, 2C:39-5(d), 2C:39-5e(2) & 2C:39-7

Now I'll bet the "More to the story" has something to do with one (or more) of the five exceptions listed above........

2 hours ago, capt14k said:

Even if used why should that be an issue if it was in self defense. Kind of pointless to carry if you can't use it.

 

The "more to the story" issue might be something NOT related to stun gun or it's use, but maybe some other illegal activity that she got arrested for, and the stun gun was piled on. Just like the last person who came on here looking for legal advice (where her firearms were taken), we never get the WHOLE story. Why would the this person post part of the story? So, all we have is speculation...

The "more to the story" issue might be something NOT related to stun gun or it's use, but maybe some other illegal activity that she got arrested for, and the stun gun was piled on. Just like the last person who came on here looking for legal advice (where her firearms were taken), we never get the WHOLE story. Why would the this person post part of the story? So, all we have is speculation...

Didn't think of it that way. I suppose that is possible.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

'More to the story'.  No, I did use the stun gun or ever commit any crimes.  Those who are old enough to know.  When stopped, law enforcement informed the driver what he/she is being stopped for.  Not so today.

This goes back to May 2015 with the Seat Belt Law & the aggressive behavior of alleged law enforcement.  When contesting a summons, chances are you will be railroaded.  I chose to be defiant & paid the price.  Stopped again in December 2015 & they really pour it on.  After these 2 incidences, I began to consider dash cams.

There is a small self-serving store, while inside a notice was posted in reference to bears.  Next time I decided to carry the stun gun. Whether it would have said anything or not, would have been another question.  Considering, I was driving approximately 5 minutes to the next destination, I turned off the dash camera & placed it next to the stun gun on the driver side floor (plain view).  I did make it to my next destination; but, I was being followed.  I did not move fast enough & was arrested. Meantime, vehicle is illegally searched.

Imagine being released without bail.  What a first time experience.  Back to my car.  Had a fit because they tossed everything around.  My dash camera been confiscated too.  No mention of it being snatched either.....hmmmmmm.  It certainly would have cleaned-up everything from the first stop.  That's what I get for taking a long story & making it short.

even back in the 80's police(at least the ones that stopped me) didn't really tell ya(right away) what you were being stopped for. it was always........do you know why i pulled you over?........then after they had your ins/reg, they'd tell ya.

 

 i was pulled in somerdale about7 years ago for not having commercial tags on my van(which has my business name on it). i fought it. officer had statute wrong(if he'd written me under the correct one), PLUS he wrote me under a statute that had nothing to do with my van. did a little research, went to court, fought it, and charges were tossed. never any "retaliation" from the pd though. never was followed etc.....unless i drove in a way to attract their attention.

 dash cam.....NEVER turn it off. mine runs constant, even when the vehicle's parked.

"More to the story" was hard to follow. [emoji2962]

Sent from an undisclosed location via Tapatalk

17 minutes ago, PK90 said:

"More to the story" was hard to follow.

Sent from an undisclosed location via Tapatalk
 

Hard to follow? - Impossible to follow...........