Judge Confirms NJ Stun Gun Ban Violates 2nd Amendment, Orders Enforcement Halt

By David Codrea

Stun Gun Fires
Federal judge confirms New Jersey's ban on electronic arms is unconstitutional.
David Codrea in his natural habitat.

USA – -(Ammoland.com) New Jersey’s ban on electronic arms is an unconstitutional violation of the Second Amendment and the state must stop enforcing it, a federal judge ordered Tuesday. Judge Michael A. Shipp of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, Vicinage of Trenton, issued the order in the matter of New Jersey Second Amendment Society and Mark Cheeseman vs. New Jersey Attorney General Christopher S. Porrino  and Superintendent of the New Jersey State Police, Col. Rick Fuentes.

The court order comes on the heels of a consent order proposed by Porrino, a breaking development reported exclusively on April12 by AmmoLand Shooting Sports News.

“Pursuant to the holdings in HellerMcDonald 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 in that it violates the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and shall not be enforced,” the consent order admitted.

Judge Shipp agreed, and issued Tuesday’s court order to include:

  • “The Second Amendment guarantees individuals a fundamental right to keep and bear arms for self-defense … 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.’”
  • “[The New Jersey statute] is declared unconstitutional in that it violates the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and shall not be enforced.”
  • “[The New Jersey statute] shall not be enforced to the extent this statute prohibits, under criminal penalty, the sale or shipment of Tasers or other electronic arms…”
  • “[A]ny and all proceedings in this matter are hereby stayed for a period of 180 days until such time that any necessary revisions to existing controlling legal authorities may be implemented…”

Plaintiffs were also awarded “reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.” The order follows:

NJ Judge Enters Consent Order by AmmoLand Shooting Sports News on Scribd

Firearms Lawyer Stephen Stamboulieh
Firearms Lawyer Stephen Stamboulieh

“We are thrilled the court entered the consent order and made official what we all knew: that Tasers are protected arms under the Second Amendment, Stephen D. Stamboulieh, plaintiff's co-counsel with attorneys Alan Beck and Ryan Watson, told AmmoLand Shooting Sports News. “Now, we will see what New Jersey decides to do in the 180 days until the order executes. We are hopeful given the strong language of the order, that New Jersey will not attempt to ban carry or possession through new legislation or regulation. But that remains to be seen.”

As noted in the previous AmmoLand report, Stamboulieh sent a notification letter to U.S. District Judge David N. Hurd, in the matter of Avitabile, et al. v. Cuomo, et al., to advise him of the essential similarity between New York law and New Jersey law. Per another AmmoLand report filed in March, New York Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman insists there is no right to own a taser or a stun gun even in a citizen’s own home.

About David Codrea:

David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating / defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament.

In addition to being a field editor/columnist at GUNS Magazine and associate editor for Oath Keepers, he blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.

  • 7
    Leave a Reply

    Please Login to comment
    3 Comment threads
    4 Thread replies
    0 Followers
     
    Most reacted comment
    Hottest comment thread
    7 Comment authors
    TionicoDave in FairfaxJim SWild BillHerb Recent comment authors
      Subscribe  
    Notify of
    Jim S
    Guest
    Jim S

    Considering Kaliforku and New York will do anything to not comply, this will eventually head to SCOTUS. There is a light on the horizon for the people trapped by Kalifornia socialists.

    Bill Mullins
    Guest
    Bill Mullins

    I followed David’s link about the NYAG who said that he would have ” to figure out if the Supreme Court’s Heller opinion is binding law in New York. “ WHISKEY TANGO FOXTROT???? He doesn’t already KNOW whether SCOTUS decisions are “binding law” in New York? How the bleeping hell could a SCOTUS decision NOT be binding law in NY – and in the other 49 States, PR, Guam, USVI and every other place that U.S, law applies??? Is this guy serious, David? Since when would sauce for NJ’s goose not equally be sauce for NY’s gander? Is this issue… Read more »

    Herb
    Guest
    Herb

    Democrats/liberals/socialists/communists will say anything and do just about anything to advance their big plan of higher taxes on the productive, disarming law-abiding citizens, giving the advantage to criminals over the law-abiding, all the while lining their own pockets with your tax money – what used to be your money. Especially in not so nice, crime-infested places like New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts, Californication, Washington, Oregon, etc. IMHO, of course.

    Wild Bill
    Guest
    Wild Bill

    Oblabla set the precedent of doing anything you like in contravention of law. He tried to destroy the tenant that “we are a nation of laws, not men.” Now, every office holder, like the NYAG, is a petty dictator in his own fiefdom. We need a Day of Reckoning to reassert our national political heritage and our Constitution.

    Dave in Fairfax
    Guest
    Dave in Fairfax

    I thought you knew. NY is the EMPIRE state. You know what happens to those who rebel against the Empire. I can just hear AG Schneiderman now, “Luke, I am a mother father.”

    Tionico
    Guest
    Tionico

    you forget the ongoing kerfuffle with the City of New York and current immigratioin law… people in control in that state somehow think they are more equal than the pigs in the rest of the nation.

    Delusions of grandeur, I believe, ilies at the root of this

    P. Edgar
    Guest
    P. Edgar

    What am I missing here? The Second Amendment extends to electronic arms, but not to firearms? Or, (hopefully,) this ruling can be used to challenge bans on firearms, as well! (Such as bans on so-called “assault weapons,” etc.)