New Jersey –-(Ammoland.com)- In a brief dated November 7, 2016, submitted in the Appellate case of State v. Lambert, the Office of the Attorney General concedes that New Jersey’s Stun Gun Ban is unconstitutional, stating:
“[T]he State agrees with defendant that New Jersey’s stun-gun statute, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-3h, is unconstitutional in light of Caetano v. Massachusetts, 136 S.Ct. 1027 (2016), and defendant’s conviction under that statute should be vacated in the interests of justice.” (See attached.)
This position was in response to a brief filed on behalf of Appellant Lambert by Joshua Sanders, Esq., of the New Jersey Office of the Public Defender Appellate Division. (See attached.)
In this case, Lambert was charged in 2009 with possession of a stun gun in violation of N.J.S. 2C:39-3h, as well as other non-weapons charges.
Although the appellant did not raise this constitutional issue in his original 2015 plea, the Attorney General confirms in its brief:
“[T]he State agrees with defendant’s reading of United States Supreme Court precedent. To briefly recap Second-Amendment jurisprudence, the United States Supreme Court held that “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,” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 582 (2008), and that this “Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States[.]” McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742, 750 (2010).”
The AG further recognizes:
“The State is unaware of any legitimate basis to distinguish New Jersey’s stun-gun statute from Massachusetts’ statute. The New Jersey stun-gun statute, like the Massachusetts statute, criminalizes mere possession of a stun gun….. Since both statutes criminalize mere possession of a stun gun, for the reasons outlined in Caetano, New Jersey’s stun-gun statute, like Massachusetts’s statute, violates the Second Amendment.”
Evan F. Nappen, Esq., whose practice focuses on firearm and weapons law, stated in response to this recent development, “This is going to help a lot of people, including those who are looking for a reliable, non-lethal form of defense.”
Additionally, Nappen confirmed that he presently has a number of cases in which this will be of help.
About:
Evan Nappen (www.EvanNappen.com) is a criminal defense attorney who has focused on New Jersey firearms and weapons law for over 23 years. He is the author of the New Jersey Gun Law Guide. Visit his website at www.EvanNappen.com
Now that we have a real POTUS, I am sure we will start to see things happening at the federal level! Still, things like this take time. Patience folks, Donald Trump is a man of his word! He is a good man and I believe he will follow through with every one of his campaign promises! Better late than never. Just imagine what we almost had to deal with. SWILLARY CLINTON is a fat pig and a big waste of space heading to jail where she belongs.
Hopefully soon, the SCOTUS will be able to overturn some of these lower court rulings, when people begin to actually CHALLENGE the deep-pocket rulings being made. Not accusing any judicial system of being bought…just saying.
Maybe the NJ courts will “discover” that handguns are constitutional someday? Maybe Governor Christie can issue a pardon to everybody whose only crime is possession of a gun that is legal in Kansas or Texas but illegal in NJ?
I have a carry permit. I pray to god I never have to shoot anybody. I have Mace which can take up to 15 seconds to take full effect,if any. I see nothing wrong with an additional non lethal option.-I have not heard of a death because of these . The only possibility would be the indiuvidual being shocked could have a very bad heart condition. Anybody with a bad heart should not be doing thins which would warrant being zapped -Shawn.