Jump to content


Photo

Consent decree entered, Taser ban unconstitutional in New Jersey

Taser Caetano Stun Gun New Jersey

  • Please log in to reply
8 replies to this topic

#1 Gamma

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,188 posts
  • Joined: 29-December 13

Posted 25 April 2017 - 09:53 PM

http://www.sdslaw.us...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.

Edited by Gamma, 25 April 2017 - 09:54 PM.

Illinois' FCCA is a prime example of the maxim that sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.

#2 bmyers

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,498 posts
  • Joined: 31-May 12

Posted 26 April 2017 - 04:03 AM

Interesting



#3 Davey

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,139 posts
  • Joined: 02-November 10

Posted 26 April 2017 - 04:22 AM

NJ will overly regulate them just like they do firearms. A win is a win though. Good for NJ.

#4 BobPistol

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,388 posts
  • Joined: 24-February 13

Posted 26 April 2017 - 05:02 AM

Yes, you can own one, but you can only buy it on the first Tuesday of a month during regular business hours, and a $500 crony enriching fee.


The Second Amendment of the Constitution protects the rest.

#5 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,143 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 26 April 2017 - 08:34 AM

Window dressing. We all know how the People's Republic of New Jersey treats law-abiding, armed citizens. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk
NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#6 xdm45aaron

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 160 posts
  • Joined: 29-October 15

Posted 26 April 2017 - 08:49 AM

Maybe they will regulate them and ban high voltage capabilities.


NRA Life Member


#7 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,143 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 27 April 2017 - 02:39 PM

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


NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#8 press1280

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 189 posts
  • Joined: 23-October 11

Posted 29 April 2017 - 03:47 PM

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.



#9 Gamma

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,188 posts
  • Joined: 29-December 13

Posted 29 April 2017 - 09:39 PM

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.


Illinois' FCCA is a prime example of the maxim that sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Taser, Caetano, Stun Gun, New Jersey

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users