New Jersey: Ordinary Objects Self-Defense Lawsuit Challenges Broad Weapon Definition

• Gun rights advocates have sued New Jersey officials, arguing the state's weapon laws are too broad and prevent carrying ordinary objects for self-defense.
• The lawsuit, led by the Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs Inc. and Knife Rights Inc., challenges the 2022 law Chapter 131 and its definition of a weapon as "anything readily capable of lethal use."
• Plaintiffs cite a 1990 New Jersey Supreme Court ruling that allowed spontaneous self-defense but prohibited preparing in advance with a weapon, calling it "unconscionable."
• Individual plaintiffs seek to carry items like larger pepper spray canisters, collapsible batons, and switchblade knives, arguing for an "intermediate form of self-defense."
• The New Jersey Attorney General's Office, led by Jennifer Davenport, plans to fight the lawsuit, stating that the state's restrictions are necessary for public safety.

This lawsuit represents a significant challenge to New Jersey's expansive definition of 'weapon' and its restrictions on carrying ordinary objects for personal protection.

A new legal action has been initiated against New Jersey officials, spearheaded by gun rights advocates, asserting that the state's current weapon statutes are excessively broad. Filed on Monday, this lawsuit contends that these regulations effectively prevent residents from carrying common, everyday items for personal protection, such as baseball bats or scissors. The plaintiffs explicitly state that this legal challenge is not centered on firearms but rather on the broader concept of 'arms,' arguing that the state's Attorney General Jennifer Davenport is undermining the principles established by the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark *Bruen* decision.

The core of the complaint highlights that New Jersey residents are unable to carry any ordinary object for defense against violent crime, specifically mentioning items like baseball bats, sticks, knives, or scissors. Leading this significant New Jersey ordinary objects self-defense lawsuit is the Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs Inc., which serves as the National Rifle Association's affiliate in the Garden State and represents tens of thousands of its members. They are joined by Knife Rights Inc. and four individual plaintiffs, all of whom are members of both organizations. This particular NJ non-firearm weapons challenge distinguishes itself from other ongoing litigation by focusing exclusively on restrictions concerning non-handgun weapons.

At the heart of this legal dispute is New Jersey's 2022 law, known as Chapter 131, which was enacted approximately seven months after the Supreme Court affirmed the right to carry handguns in public for self-defense in *New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen*. The plaintiffs specifically take issue with the New Jersey weapon definition challenge, which broadly defines a weapon as "anything readily capable of lethal use or inflicting serious bodily injury." They argue that, under this expansive interpretation, virtually "anything can be a prohibited weapon under New Jersey law."

To illustrate their point, the lawsuit cites the example of an individual found with a baseball bat in their vehicle when not en route to a game, who could face arrest, prosecution, and imprisonment under state law. The plaintiffs also reference the New Jersey Supreme Court's 1990 ruling in the criminal case of Rochelle Kelly, a single mother who used a carpet cutter to protect herself from a potentially abusive ex-boyfriend. The court found that while Kelly could spontaneously use a weapon for defense, she could not prepare in advance by carrying the razor, a ruling the plaintiffs deem "unconscionable." According to the plaintiffs, only two exceptions exist to this restrictive approach: the state permits carrying a pepper spray canister, and the *Bruen* precedent New Jersey self-defense context established the right to carry handguns. They contend that "no intermediate form of self-defense is permitted under New Jersey law."

The individual plaintiffs involved in the Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs lawsuit are seeking to establish a legal pathway for what they describe as an "intermediate form of self-defense." Their personal circumstances highlight the perceived gaps in New Jersey's current self-defense statutes. For instance, Wendy Copenhaver, a 63-year-old Sunday school teacher, desires the ability to carry a pepper spray canister larger than what is currently permitted under state law.

Her brother, 58-year-old Wayne Viden, who is also a plaintiff, wishes to carry a collapsible baton for personal protection. Similarly, 65-year-old Salvatore Marsilla seeks the right to carry a collapsible baton. The fourth plaintiff, 77-year-old Walter Everard Jr., expresses a desire to carry a switchblade knife if it were legally permissible. These specific requests underscore the broader New Jersey weapon definition challenge, aiming to expand the range of non-firearm tools individuals can legally possess for self-defense.

In response to the New Jersey ordinary objects self-defense lawsuit, the New Jersey Attorney General’s Office, led by Jennifer Davenport, has affirmed its intention to vigorously defend against the legal challenge. A spokesperson for the office stated that "New Jersey’s commonsense restrictions on weapons keep our residents safe" and vowed to "defend against this lawsuit and do all we can to end violence in our state." This stance sets the stage for a significant legal battle over the interpretation of self-defense rights and weapon definitions.

This lawsuit, which specifically targets the New Jersey Chapter 131 weapons definition, carries substantial implications beyond just the right to carry specific items. It represents a fundamental challenge to the state's approach to personal protection, particularly in the wake of the *Bruen* precedent New Jersey self-defense ruling. The outcome could redefine what constitutes a legal self-defense tool in the state, potentially impacting criminal defense strategies for individuals charged with possessing everyday items and influencing advice on permissible self-defense options beyond firearms.

This lawsuit challenges the broad definition of 'weapon' under New Jersey law and the right to carry non-firearm objects for self-defense, potentially impacting criminal defense strategies for clients charged with possession of everyday items and advising on permissible self-defense tools beyond firearms.

Source: Original reporting via Courthouse News Service