BREAKING: US District Court Strikes Down New York’s Ban on TASERs and Stun Guns

https://buy.taser.com/products/taser-pulse-plus

Courtesy TASER

New York, being opposed to citizens having the ability to adequately defend themselves, either within our outside their homes, has had a longtime ban on the possession of electronic dart (TASER) and stun guns. Owning one is a misdemeanor and displaying or threatening to use one is a felony.

But not any more. In a decision announced today, US District Court Judge David N. Hurd has struck down the state’s ban under the Heller decision, ruling that the prohibition is a violation of the Second Amendment.

As Judge Hurd wrote . . .

New York’s sweeping prohibition on the possession and use of tasers and stun guns by all citizens for all purposes, even for self-defense in one’s own home, must be declared unconstitutional in light of Heller. To be clear, this conclusion does not foreclose the possibility that some restriction(s) on the possession and/or use of tasers and stun guns would be permissible under the Second Amendment. Other states have already done this. See, e.g., WIS. STAT . § 941.295(2g)(b) (permitting possession of “electric weapon” in home or place of business). New York might consider doing so as well.

Therefore, it is

ORDERED that

1. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED;

2. Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment is DENIED;

3. New York Penal Law § 265.01(1), as applied to “electronic dart guns” and “electronic stun guns,” is an unconstitutional restriction on the right to bear arms; and

4. Defendant, his officers, agents, servants, employees, and all persons in active concert or participation with the New York State Police are hereby ENJOINED from enforcing New York Penal Law § 265.01(1) as applied to “electronic dart guns” and “electronic stun guns.”

You can read the entire ruling here.

This is entirely consistent with previous rulings regarding stun guns.

 

comments

  1. avatar TommyG says:

    Woah that came out of left field. Didn’t even know there was a pending case.

    1. avatar Detent says:

      There are some pretty cool stun guns that look just like an iphone 7 complete with glowing screens and rounded corners.

      1. avatar AaronW says:

        The only number it call dial is “1-800-STUN-YOU”

        1. avatar RF s a BFBD says:

          1-900-TAZE-U-UP

    2. avatar DDay says:

      Clinton nominee from New York too

    3. avatar Hannibal says:

      It’s been happening all over the country. Any state trying to still argue for these ridiculous bans is wasting taxpayer money on a lost cause. Again.

  2. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    Outstanding! Any gun, even a stun gun, is better than no gun. This is one step forward. Good. I’ve been listening to this case in 2A news site. Now let’s get it to the Supreme Court to make it official.

    1. avatar Whoopie says:

      After a few thugs get zapped on the subway some semblance of civility may again return to NYC, not seen since Bernie Geotz shot those muggers decades ago.

  3. avatar Geoff PR says:

    “In a decision announced today, US District Court Judge David N. Hurd has struck down the state’s ban under the Heller decision, ruling that the prohibition is a violation of the Second Amendment.”

    When the walls come tumblin’, tumblin’ Down…

    Groovy!

    1. avatar strych9 says:

      John Mellencamp? Really?

      For the proper amount of schadenfreude today I’d go with Nine Inch Nails.

      Liberals have a burning desire for that “perfect kingdom of killing, suffering and pain”, they’ve overplayed their hand and now, over time, it’s all going to come crashing down around them in more ways than they’d like to think about. People have realized that the Ruiner really is the living end to the cattle he deceives and they’re getting pretty ticked about it.

  4. avatar Draven says:

    in Mass you need a carry permit to carry one, or at least you did…

    1. avatar Draven says:

      clickthebox

  5. avatar Vinny Boombotts says:

    Just read too that a Judge in Lake County IL. knocked down suburban Deerfield’s “assault weapon” ban. If anyone wants a good read google John Kass’ Chicago tribune column about a recent incident in Chicago where the police were surrounded and had to release a narcotics suspect. He also calls the phrase “gun violence” a copout for the politicians and it should be called gang violence.

    1. avatar Geoff PR says:

      “Just read too that a Judge in Lake County IL. knocked down suburban Deerfield’s “assault weapon” ban.”

      That’s more *BREAKING* news, a permanent injunction, no less!

      “Judge throws out Deerfield’s assault weapons ban”

      “A Lake County Circuit Court judge ruled Friday that the village of Deerfield overstepped its authority last year when it enacted a ban on assault weapons five years after the Illinois legislature declared such regulations the exclusive power of the state.

      Judge Luis Berrones issued a permanent injunction blocking the village from enforcing its ordinance. In the ruling, Berrones wrote that the plaintiff gun owners have “a clearly ascertainable right to not be subjected to a preempted and unenforceable ordinance” that prohibits possession of assault weapons, imposes financial penalties for keeping them and allows their property to be confiscated.”

      https://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/deerfield/news/ct-dfr-assault-weapons-ban-ruling-tl-0328-story.html

  6. avatar Rick the Bear says:

    Yay!

    Now, can the MA SJC acknowledge that Heller and MacDonald actually happened and tell AG Healey to stop screwing around with the AWB? Asking for a friend.

  7. avatar BB Eyes says:

    This came as a cplete surprise as the Hellen decision has been mostly ignored in a mature of states.

    This decision will lost likely be attacked in NY by their Sion governor who never allows any opinions contradictory his magesty

    I wonder what his father thinks of his son’s dictatorial leadershop?

  8. avatar Rocketman says:

    Now all of us gun owners need to send an e-mail to the White House asking that the next U. S. Supreme Court vacancy come open that Judge Hurd at least be considered for the post. Wouldn’t that upset the leftists!

    1. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

      Judge Hurd is 82 years old. He’s probably not on anyone’s SC short list. As for this ruling, aside from SC precedent, there was also an essentially identical case in NJ in 2017 in which federal judge Shipp ruled this same way.

      I don’t know that Judge Hurd is a true Second Amendment champion or a constitutionalist–he’s a Clinton-appointee, after all–but the 2A precedents are piling up. That makes it more difficult for a judge to rule with impunity and not suffer the indignity of being overturned easily on appeal. Besides, Hurd has a very bad reputation on 4A cases and reportedly defaults in favor of the government’s excesses. As 2A wins go, I’ll put this one in the “blind squirrel finds a nut” category.

    2. avatar m says:

      I’d rather see Diane Sykes (7th circuit – Ruled that shooting ranges were protected by the 2nd), but she’s 61, so not on anyone’s short list either.

  9. The Constitution contains a “Supremacy Clause” dictating that Federal laws are superior to State Laws. This also makes State Constitions inferior to the US Constitution.

    Federal Law (our System of Laws) is inferior to Constitutional Law upon which Federal Law depends for aithority.

    Thus, no State can impose laws upon those citizens over which it has jurisdiction that reduce the protections guaranteed them by US constitutional law.

    All States, communities, businesses and other entities that impose restrictions on carrying any means of self-preservation, protection are violating the US Constitution and must be forced to comply with the US Constitution first, then their constitution and State law.

    The US Constitution, as written and legally amended following procedures required by Article V., is the foundation upon which all laws depend for authority. No politician or political entity has the power to interpret or to cause legislation to alter the Constitution, now or in the future, to become law.

    The Supreme Court cannot interpret the Constitution. Its job is to protect it from all enemies and to hear cases brought before it and issue its opinion as to whether there is evidence to support violation of an entity’s constitutional protections/rights. The Supreme Court cannot sentence, it offers detailed opinions.

  10. avatar RMS1911 says:

    Whaaaattttt?????
    The second amendment covers something other than a musket?
    Who’d’ve thunk it?

  11. avatar Mark N. says:

    I take it the judge felt compelled to rule the way he did, but didn’t like it as demonstrated by his “suggestion” as to how NY might fix the problems with the statute. (He really shouldn’t have done that. It is not his job.)

    1. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

      Agreed.

    2. avatar Justsomeguy says:

      I also agree

  12. avatar Nanashi says:

    You mean they didn’t pull a Kavanaugh and say that because they’ve traditionally been banned they aren’t protected by the second amendment?

  13. avatar TFred says:

    But, but, but, but…. there WEREN’T ANY stun guns or tasers in 1791!!!!

    ::just wait for it::

  14. avatar Hannibal says:

    NO! You’re not allowed to defend yourself by any means!

    NY’s plan will be to place Tasers on the same level of handguns and make them theoretically legal to purchase by practically illegal because no permits will be handed out.

  15. avatar Cat Servant says:

    “NY’s plan will be to place Tasers on the same level of handguns and make them theoretically legal to purchase by practically illegal because no permits will be handed out.”

    How do they do that without running afoul of Heller?

    1. avatar BLAMMO says:

      They ignore it.

  16. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    Tasers and stun guns are Arms and as such “Shall Not Be Infringed” even in the Communist utopia of New York.

  17. avatar Robert Messmer says:

    Quote: “To be clear, this conclusion does not foreclose the possibility that some restriction(s) on the possession and/or use of tasers and stun guns would be permissible under the Second Amendment.” I sure wish the judge would have explained how any restrictions would be within the Second Amendment. The reading I have of the Second Amendment says, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED! How is it possible to place any type of restriction that does not infringe?

    1. avatar Joe Matafome says:

      Most of the country infringes on our rights and SCOTUS allows them to disrespect the 2A.

  18. avatar Joe Matafome says:

    Still illegal in RI. We’ll be the last to ever take action and no one here is willing to fight it in court

  19. well I am happy, I have been setting up a company to sell them through the internet. now I can sell them in NY.

  20. avatar CD says:

    Living in the People’s Republic of New York I’ll take any 2A victories we can get! Now all I need to celebrate is a “come and take it” flag with a 9 volt battery on it instead of an a cannon.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email