Quote of the Day

New Jersey demands that its citizens be defenseless when they go about their day in public. Defenseless. Until forced to issue Permits to Carry a Handgun by the Bruen decision in 2022, New Jersey banned its citizens from carrying any weapon for self-defense. Still today, New Jerseyans cannot carry any ordinary object for protection against violent crime, not a baseball bat, not a stick, not a knife, not a pair of scissors, not anything. If a person keeps an ordinary baseball bat in her car or if she keeps a small baton (sometimes called a kuboton) on her keychain she can find herself arrested and thrown in prison under New Jersey law.

Daniel L. Schmutter
HARTMAN & WINNICKI, P.C.
September 21, 2026
ANJRP v. Davenport

Not only “can” but have been arrested and convicted. From the complaint:

In State v. Kelly, 118 N.J. 370 (1990), the New Jersey Supreme Court interpreted 2C:39-5(d) to exclude self-defense as a “lawful purpose.” The case involved, Kelly, a single mother of a young child who was taking the child to the park to play. Because she was worried that, on the way to the park, they might encounter her violent ex-boyfriend who had beaten her severely on multiple occasions (including once sending her to the hospital), the single mom brought with her a carpet cutter for protection. Id. at 373-74.

Kelly was correct in her prediction. On their way back from the park, they did encounter the violent ex-boyfriend, and he started punching Kelly repeatedly, including punching her in the head, dazing her, when she tried to run away. Kelly then produced the carpet cutter and cut him several times. He ceased his attack. Id. at 374-75.

The New Jersey Supreme Court unconscionably held that while Kelly could lawfully exercise self-defense by spontaneously encountering a weapon at the exact moment she needed it, she could not prepare for self-defense in advance by bringing a weapon with her on her travels, even though she correctly predicted that she would need it to defend her life:

When Kelly armed herself, the danger was in no way immediate. Had Kelly seized the weapon spontaneously and used it to defend herself against a life-threatening attack, then, she would not have possessed the weapon for a manifestly inappropriate purpose. As it stands, however, even Kelly acknowledged at trial that she knew she was not supposed to carry a razor but took it with her in anticipation of a confrontation with Boone. Thus, the record fully supports the jury’s finding that Kelly possessed the weapon under manifestly inappropriate circumstances. Her anticipatory self-defense does not excuse the possession.

Id. at 385-86. In what can only be described as the New Jersey Supreme Court’s Dred Scott moment, the Court concluded that the legally correct choice for Kelly was to die at the hands of her attacker.

I cannot imagine what delusional version of reality these legislators and judge reside in. Wherever it is, they should be dragged out of it to be prosecuted, convicted, and severely punished.

As I have said before (and here, here, here, here, here, and here), “It’s this sort of thing that keeps me out of New Jersey until they are giving away free varmint hunting licenses for the criminal politicians and those that enforce these illegal laws.”