New Jersey loses a 2nd Amendment case

Via email from Ry we have a win against New Jersey in a 2nd Amendment case:

Today, the District Court of New Jersey entered the Consent Order re: Tasers

April 25, 2017

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.

It only knocks down their law against Tasers, but every little step in the right direction helps.

5 thoughts on “New Jersey loses a 2nd Amendment case

  1. The final comment in para. 1 looks pretty good to me. I look forward to reading the whole decision.

  2. Absolutely. This is pretty significant;
    “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.”

    That blows away the old “The founders could not have imagined assault rifles” and similar arguments.

    Also, it asserts “electronic arms” as being protected under the second amendment. “Electronic arms” would apply to other things besides tasers– “all instruments that constitute bearable arms” is very broad, and properly so. That immediately brings into question all of the restrictions on knives of various kinds, for example.

  3. “It only knocks down their law against Tasers, but every little step in the right direction helps.”
    When Heller was on the Docket there were any people expressing the hope that the decision would cast all the infringing laws about guns away as the Second Amendment was upheld. . I said at the time that the court, when it does its job correctly is incremental. not sweeping.
    It took fifty-seven years to rid the constitution of the poison of Plessey vs Ferguson, one instance of separate but not equal or not available separately or not equal at all, at a time
    I hope the Second Amendment is given the same attention. With the slow walking back of infringing, totalitarian laws there is a clear line of cases supporting every decision from “May Issue” to Constitutional Issue”.
    Not as dazzling as announcing some brand-new right newly discovered by cross reading the constitution with Marx, but real judging.

  4. Wisconsin has a similar prohibition exempting permit holders only. I wonder if that exemption would make the general prohibition pass muster. I think it likely but I will alert my legislators nonetheless.

  5. So they got rid of the “outright prohibition”, great….

    Give it until the next legislative session and we’ll have a law stating that you require a permit to posses “electronic arms”, and obtaining a permit requires “justifiable need”, which, well, I’m sorry, you just don’t have….

    Unless the court agrees to hear Peruta, it’ll be more of the same in NJ.

    The better question is can this precedent be used to overturn the ban on slingshots in NJ? 🙂

Comments are closed.