NJ: State Supreme Court recognizes 2A exists!
Posted: Sat Jun 10, 2017 8:58 am
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/vol ... e8b20410e5
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/vol ... e8b20410e5
Neighbors in apartments argue about noise. One visits other, tosses a small table, goes back to own apartment. Other visits one, apparently slams and kicks door. One picks up machete, testifies he held it by and behind his leg when answering door.
One gets arrested for "possession of a weapon for unlawful purpose" and "unlawful possession of a weapon." Acquitted on first charge due to self-defense, but judge gave no self-defense instruction to jury for second charge. Jury asks about this. Judge tells them "the availability of necessity as a justification for the immediate possession of a weapon, as with self[-]defense, is limited only to cases of spontaneous and compelling danger." Apparently judge thinks you have to be under attack before justified to have a weapon. Jury convicts on second charge.
Appealed to state supreme court. Supreme court says judge's reasoning is nonsense ("untenable"), says knives and machetes are weapons and 2A protects right of self-defense, and possession of weapons is protected as well. One's possession of a machete in his home was legal and it doesn't matter if he possessed it for roofing purposes or self-defense, both are legal, and the second purpose is constitutionally protected.
Shazam.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/vol ... e8b20410e5
Neighbors in apartments argue about noise. One visits other, tosses a small table, goes back to own apartment. Other visits one, apparently slams and kicks door. One picks up machete, testifies he held it by and behind his leg when answering door.
One gets arrested for "possession of a weapon for unlawful purpose" and "unlawful possession of a weapon." Acquitted on first charge due to self-defense, but judge gave no self-defense instruction to jury for second charge. Jury asks about this. Judge tells them "the availability of necessity as a justification for the immediate possession of a weapon, as with self[-]defense, is limited only to cases of spontaneous and compelling danger." Apparently judge thinks you have to be under attack before justified to have a weapon. Jury convicts on second charge.
Appealed to state supreme court. Supreme court says judge's reasoning is nonsense ("untenable"), says knives and machetes are weapons and 2A protects right of self-defense, and possession of weapons is protected as well. One's possession of a machete in his home was legal and it doesn't matter if he possessed it for roofing purposes or self-defense, both are legal, and the second purpose is constitutionally protected.
Shazam.