As part of the orders that were handed down at the same time as McDonald:
MALONEY, JAMES M. V. RICE, KATHLEEN A. The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit for further consideration in light of McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. _(2010). Justice Sotomayor took no part in the consideration”
Well, OK, not quite yet, but the Court will presumably have to do more serious analysis, or at least different analysis, on whether New York’s nunchaku ban violates the Second Amendment.
Sadly, I don’t see there being much chance that this violates the Second Amendment under a Heller test, as they’re not a weapon in common use (or not a serious weapon at all). Get thee to a gun store.
I remember when the Wildwood, NJ police would carry them, instead of a billy club or night stick!.
I am actually quite good with them. I wouldn’t want them in a gun fight, but I would win every knife fight.
Hey, they didn’t deny cert. Could be interesting
Granting cert in this manner doesn’t mean the Supreme Court will actually hear the case.
A “grant/vacate/remand” is the Supreme Court’s routine procedure for handling a case that’s governed by a ruling in another case decided at the same term. Formally, they have to “grant” in order to send it back down.
Ask your local police officer about “weapons in common use.” When I see my friends on the farce in uniform, I note: tasers, saps, batons, switchblades, concealed pistols, CS canisters in the vehicle, along with M16s (yep burst fire mode, not semi-auto) and riot shotguns. Here in the People’s Republic us mere citizens can’t legally own most of those items, much less carry (bear) them around town. It ain’t right that our employees can and we can’t.
I meant “they granted cert to remand” rather than letting the lower court decision stand. I know it won’t be coming up to the SCOTUS this round.
“Not in common use” is a circular argument, when the lack of common use is due to thier being illegal.
I agree, but that’s what the Court has provided us with. You have to work with it.
The cops have varying levels of arms: mace, batons, tasers, and a gun. I think in NY there is an exemption for police to use the nunchakus and is in the complaint (it’s been a while since I read it last). I don’t think the discriminatory law will pass the McDonald test.
Nunchakus would be in more common use if they hadn’t been banned in the 70’s as a result of a Bruce Lee movie. No crime had been reported where a nunchaku was used prior to that.
There is a place for people to just start pointing out that the law is stupid and should be changed legislatively.
Start asking public questions as to why it’s still on the books when there is evidence it came about as a result of idiotic reactions to a kung fu movie, that there’s no evidence it does any good and that most other states (?) don’t bather banning them (or any other applicable particular weapon) by name.
I think we don’t make enough use of public ridicule against anti-gun/weapon folks.
Make the LE leadership get up and say for the record that they feel their cops can’t deal with honest citizens “heavily armed” with two sticks connected with a piece of rope.
I’ve taken martial arts classes for years, (Never in New York though.) visited other schools and been to tournaments also, and nunchakus were in “common use” at all of the above from what I’ve seen.
The decision to ban the nunchaku in NY, CA, and anywhere else they were banned, just because Bruce Lee showed them off on the big screen 35 years ago, was and still is beyond stupid.
Back in the 1990’s, I started seeing some martial artists showing off their skills with those two-handed bladed weapons that the Klingons had on “Star Trek: The Next Generation.” These things basically look like giant windshield wiper blades with pointy sharp edges pointed outward. As far as I know, no states have ever banned these weapons, so I guess there just weren’t any liberal lawmakers watching the TV show when they were on the screen.