2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 111,977
- 52,253
- 2,290
Yep....these traditional weapons of Okinawa, used only because the Japanese banned and confiscated the swords of the Okinawan warriors...you know, a government banning and confiscating weapons in order to control a population..... these weapons are no longer against the law in New York..they are duly protected by the 2nd Amendment of the United States,......
To keep and bear arms...including Nunchaku....
Judge Rules That Nunchucks Are Protected By Second Amendment
On Friday, a U.S. district court in New York struck down a four decade-old state law banning the possession of nunchucks. Judge Pamela K. Chen declared in a 32-page ruling Friday that the 1974 law is unconstitutional, violating the Second Amendment's protection of the right to bear arms.
The law was first enacted as a response to state lawmakers' fears that the popularity of martial arts a la Bruce Lee was inspiring hoodlums to get creative in their choice of weapons. The ban not only applied to would-be criminal nunchuckers on the street, it even banned the weapon's use in martial arts training facilities. As the Washington Post points out, "They were so dangerous, lawmakers believed, that not even karate teachers could keep them in a locker at home."
Enter plaintiff James Michael Maloney, a martial arts enthusiast, whose case against the law finally made it the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York in January 2017. When the trial began, Maloney underscored the significance of the case in a blog post.
-----
The judge agreed. After noting that Maloney suggested partly repealing the law as it applies to at-home use, an approach Chen says the court does not have the authority to do, she then lays out her argument for throwing out the law in its entirety.
"Considering the scant evidence presented, the Court finds that Defendant has not met her burden to exclude nunchaku from the ambit of Second Amendment protection," Chen writes. "Simply put, Defendant does not contradict the contention that the nunchaku’s primary use, which Defendant concedes is as 'a tool from the sphere of martial arts' (Dkt. 199, at 10), is a lawful one. To the extent any evidence was offered at trial regarding the 'subjective motives of [nunchaku] owners,' the Court has considered the testimony of Plaintiff himself, Pelletteri, and Orcutt as further support for the conclusion that the typical possession of nunchaku in this country is for recreational and other lawful purposes."
------
"Therefore, because Defendant has failed to demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence, or even by a preponderance, that nunchakus are not typically used by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, she has failed to rebut the presumption that the possession and use of nunchaku is within the scope of the Second Amendment’s protections."
To keep and bear arms...including Nunchaku....
Judge Rules That Nunchucks Are Protected By Second Amendment
On Friday, a U.S. district court in New York struck down a four decade-old state law banning the possession of nunchucks. Judge Pamela K. Chen declared in a 32-page ruling Friday that the 1974 law is unconstitutional, violating the Second Amendment's protection of the right to bear arms.
The law was first enacted as a response to state lawmakers' fears that the popularity of martial arts a la Bruce Lee was inspiring hoodlums to get creative in their choice of weapons. The ban not only applied to would-be criminal nunchuckers on the street, it even banned the weapon's use in martial arts training facilities. As the Washington Post points out, "They were so dangerous, lawmakers believed, that not even karate teachers could keep them in a locker at home."
Enter plaintiff James Michael Maloney, a martial arts enthusiast, whose case against the law finally made it the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York in January 2017. When the trial began, Maloney underscored the significance of the case in a blog post.
-----
The judge agreed. After noting that Maloney suggested partly repealing the law as it applies to at-home use, an approach Chen says the court does not have the authority to do, she then lays out her argument for throwing out the law in its entirety.
"Considering the scant evidence presented, the Court finds that Defendant has not met her burden to exclude nunchaku from the ambit of Second Amendment protection," Chen writes. "Simply put, Defendant does not contradict the contention that the nunchaku’s primary use, which Defendant concedes is as 'a tool from the sphere of martial arts' (Dkt. 199, at 10), is a lawful one. To the extent any evidence was offered at trial regarding the 'subjective motives of [nunchaku] owners,' the Court has considered the testimony of Plaintiff himself, Pelletteri, and Orcutt as further support for the conclusion that the typical possession of nunchaku in this country is for recreational and other lawful purposes."
------
"Therefore, because Defendant has failed to demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence, or even by a preponderance, that nunchakus are not typically used by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, she has failed to rebut the presumption that the possession and use of nunchaku is within the scope of the Second Amendment’s protections."
