Jump to content

Consent decree entered, Taser ban unconstitutional in New Jersey


Gamma

Recommended Posts

http://www.sdslaw.us/single-post/2017/04/25/Today-the-District-Court-of-New-Jersey-entered-the-Consent-Order-re-Tasers

 

 

Today the Consent Order in New Jersey was entered. It is attached here for you to read. The Court finds:

 

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.

7th Circuit's Moore decision was referenced in the findings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe they will regulate them and ban high voltage capabilities.

Something like: "Your household appliances only needs 120 volts so your stun gun shouldn't need more than 120 volts. That's common sense." I mean, that's a perfect example of anti-gun/anti-self-defense "logic" for you, nevermind it defies all logic but hey nothing stopped em before with mag limits. "No one needs (this many) bullets to kill a deer" that is correct, Governor Cuomo, I only need one. But if four meth heads break into my house, I'm gonna need a lot more than what you think is "reasonable." Probably because "you" have a small army that is armed to the teeth, protecting "you."

 

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure how permanent this would necessarily be. My understanding is Christie's AG is essentially rolling over. A future AG may disagree, and the court hasn't actually ruled on the ban.

I could be wrong though.

This is the equivalent of a district court ruling. Basically they are pleading guilty and agreeing to the stated terms. It has precedent value.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...