Episode 309-Legalizing Self Defense in NJ Also Available On Searchable Podcast Transcript Gun Lawyer — Episode Transcript Page – 1 – of 10 Gun Lawyer — Episode 309 Transcript SUMMARY KEYWORDS Gun rights, Lawsuit, Self-defense, Second Amendment, New Jersey, Weapon ban, Case law, Bruen case, Legal litigation, Arms ban, Knife rights, Stun guns, Slingshots, Media censorship, Expungement SPEAKERS Evan Nappen, Teddy Nappen, Speaker 3 Evan Nappen 00:17 I’m Evan Nappen. Teddy Nappen 00:20 And I’m Teddy Nappen. Evan Nappen 00:21 And welcome to Gun Lawyer. Well, I have some very exciting news. There is an extremely important lawsuit that has just recently been brought by the Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs, and with Knife Rights, joining in to sue New Jersey. (https://www.anjrpc.org/page/LawsuitToOverturnNJsSelfDefenseBan) Of course, when you do that, you name the Attorney General (Jennifer) Davenport, and also we have the Superintendent of State Police (Jeanne) Hengemuhle. I don’t know. I’m probably butchering that name up pretty good, but anyway, it’s the Superintendent of State Police. Evan Nappen 01:16 In this case, this Association case, what is being challenged, and it is something that has been begging to be challenged, is New Jersey’s ban on self-defense. It is a part of, specifically, and I’ll explain why, New Jersey’s ban on everything other than guns. Their garbage can clause of weapons prohibition. The insanity of New Jersey’s weapons ban has, in its foundation, really, what I know you, as our great listeners, will find shocking as to the case law as it currently stands in New Jersey, that we are looking to absolutely put into the garbage can of history, and that’s where it belongs. Evan Nappen 02:25 Let me go through with you the actual complaint. You know, lots of times when you hear about lawsuits and litigation and these things, you usually hear about it in general terms. You hear about, you know, kind of a summary of what it is. We’re going to get a little more into the weeds here, and I think you’re going to find it interesting and why. I’ll expand your horizons to understanding how incredibly significant this litigation is, and how the stars have actually lined up for us, so we’re of course moving under. When I say we, I mean our side. I did help with this litigation. I’m not counsel of record, of course. That’s my good friend and colleague Dan Schmutter. He does the federal litigation for our state Association, and it’s a fantastic job here that has really laid it out well. Page – 2 – of 10 Evan Nappen 03:43 So, we’re coming from, of course, the Second Amendment, and the Second Amendment, as noted in the Bruen case specifically, of the trifecta, the Bruen case, that the Second Amendment’s plain text presumptively guarantees a right to bear arms in public for self-defense. e all know that in our hearts, and we know this as case law. We know that that is what the Second Amendment does, and Bruen established that self-defense outside the home is a protected right. So, in the New York State Rifle versus Pistol Association, I mean New York State Rifle and Pistol versus Bruen, the court also there found that courts should not be in the business of demanding that citizens use more force for self-defense than they are comfortable wielding. Evan Nappen 04:55 What does this all mean, and how does this apply to New Jersey? Well, it’s very simple. Let’s accept the initial premise, the Second Amendment is not the right to keep and bear guns. It’s the right to keep and bear arms, and arms are a lot more than guns. Arms are essentially any tool of self-defense, and we have the right for that. And what New Jersey is now going to have to defend is the insanity of where New Jersey wants to keep us defenseless. Absolutely wants to keep us defenseless, and the case law proves it. So, the key case that we’re going to talk about in just a little bit of the existing case law is a case of State v. Kelly. Evan Nappen 05:58 But before we get to Kelly, let me talk about the specific statute, the specific laws, so you get an understanding of what New Jersey does. New Jersey defines “weapon” as anything readily capable of lethal use or of inflicting serious bodily injury. Then it says the term includes, but is not limited to, and they do a laundry list of weapons, and of the weapons that they list, a lot of them are pretty good ideas. But anyway, it’s all part of it. So, you find that definition under N.J.S. 2C:39-1(r). So, in other words, under New Jersey’s definition of “weapon”, anything can be prohibited as a weapon. Aa baseball bat, a hammer, a screwdriver, a knife, a box cutter, bear spray, a stick, anything, and if you use it as a weapon, even your shoe, then it’s a weapon. Evan Nappen 07:10 A good example: if you happen to have a baseball bat in your car, but you’re not on the way to a baseball game, you can be arrested, prosecuted, imprisoned for weapon possession. Here’s how it works. Because New Jersey’s prohibition-remember, weapon is just what we talked about in definition-but the prohibition, which you find under N.J.S. 2C:39-5(d), prohibits the possession of any weapon. In other words, any object can be used as a weapon. And here’s right from the statute quote: Under circumstances not manifestly appropriate for such lawful uses as it may have, and here’s the kicker: you might think to yourself, “Okay, as long as you have a manifest appropriate use, right, a lawful use, then you should be okay.” Well, here’s a shocker, folks. In State v. Kelly, the court found that preemptively arming yourself for self-defense, to have a weapon for self-defense, is not a lawful use. Let that sink in. You can be prosecuted because you had the nerve to arm yourself with a weapon for self-defense, which is our constitutionally protected right to be able to do. And where do you hear the facts? Page – 3 – of 10 Teddy Nappen 09:01 Go ahead, Teddy. In the complaint, demonstrating that the biggest. I love how they pepper, and you can when you’re reading it, you see they always hammer this point back. Versus State v. Kelly, the single mother. Evan Nappen 09:15 Well, yeah, I want. Let’s talk. I want to talk about the facts of Kelly. Here’s the facts of Kelly. 1990, Kelly case. A single mother of a young child was convicted of possessing a box cutter after successfully fending off her violent boyfriend, who was in the process of beating her to death. Did you hear that? As far as the charges for her use of the box cutter to save her life and defend herself, child, etc. that was all fine. But she’s convicted of possessing the knife under 39:5(d) because the court makes this decision that essentially finds, back in 1990, and it still, you know, that law is still on the books as case law. It’s been modified slightly, and we’ll get to that in a moment. That having a weapon for self-defense doesn’t fit that “manifest lawful purpose”. It’s crazy. Then from there, a subsequent case, after the decision in Heller and McDonald applying the Second Amendment to back to the state of New Jersey, the courts decided another case called Montalvo. In Montalvo, in that case, a person comes to the door with a machete. Somebody’s banging on the door. He doesn’t know who it is, and it’s law enforcement. Well, he didn’t know that, and he wasn’t threatening them. But when he came to the door with the machete, he’s like, “oh, it’s officers, not a problem. He’s not. Well, there’s like, “Hey, you just preemptively armed yourself with a weapon for self-defense. They charge him in the same manner that Kelly had been charged, but the court here distinguished because they realized they had to under Heller, where you were allowed to have in your home weapons for self-defense. The court there said, well, if you preemptively arm yourself in your home, that’s okay, but not outside your home. So, the current law right now is you can’t preemptively arm yourself with any of these other weapons outside your home. Evan Nappen 11:53 Now, when it comes to a gun, that’s different. If you have a handgun and that’s a carry permit, and that’s where you’re allowed to, but only a handgun with a carry permit, right? Short of that, with the minor exception of less than three quarters of an ounce of pepper spray, you cannot preemptively arm yourself with any of these things. And if you have something like that, and it’s a weapon, you’re subject to prosecution for a felony level offense, and New Jersey is now going to be put to the mat on this law. The full definition under 39- 1(r) of non-firearm weapon means anything readily capable of lethal use or inflicting serious bodily injury. The term includes, but is not limited to, and of course, it includes firearms. But with firearm licensing, you have the exception. Evan Nappen 12:55 Then, gravity knives, switchblade knives, daggers, dirks, stilettos, other dangerous knives, whatever the hell that means, billies, which are similar to nightsticks and trudgens, and they’re impact weapons, right? Blackjacks, bludgeons, metal knuckles, sand clubs, slingshots. Oh, slingshots! Cesti or similar leather bands studded with metal filings or razor blades embedded in wood. Like I said, has a lot of good ideas here, but all these weapons, cesti leather wrap, that was famous. You know, the Roman gladiators would wrap their hands in leather wrap, etc. Well, that’s just a list of what it includes, but isn’t limited to. And by the way, in the list of weapon is stun guns and other devices which project, release, Page – 4 – of 10 or emit tear gas. So, the exemption for tear gas or other, you know, pepper spray and all that is less than three quarters of an ounce. Evan Nappen 14:07 Well, this
