A judge in the United States District Court of the Eastern District of New York  might have just delivered one of the greatest rulings in the history of the Second Amendment, not just for guns but for knives and less lethal weapons too.

New York ban on nunchucks ruled unconstitutional by federal court

A 1974 New York state ban on nunchucks that was put into place over fears that youth inspired by martial arts movies would create widespread mayhem is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment, a federal court has ruled.

Judge Pamela Chen issued her ruling Friday in a Brooklyn federal court on the martial arts weapon made famous by Bruce Lee.

The case is James M. Maloney v. Madeline Singas, Nassau County

The plaintiff, James Maloney, started his legal quest after being charged with possession of nunchucks in his home in 2000. He initially filed a complaint in 2003, and appealed all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court when the case went against him. The Supreme Court in 2010 remanded the case back down to be reconsidered in light of a Second Amendment decision it had made in another case, and Maloney filed an amended complaint later that year.

Maloney had been focused on getting the part of the law overturned that banned nunchucks, two rigid rods connected at one end by a chain or rope, even in private homes.

In her ruling, Chen said the court couldn’t simply take that part out, and ruled that the state’s law as it pertained to possessing nunchuks as well as to manufacturing, transporting or disposing of them was in violation of the Second Amendment.

It gets better.  From the text of the decision:

Following the trial, the parties submitted Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52. (Dkts. 184 (Plaintiff), 185 (Defendant).) However, after reviewing the trial record and the parties’ post-trial submissions, the Court determined that both parties had neglected to consider the Second Circuit’s leading case on Second Amendment challenges, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Cuomo (“NYSRPA”) 804 F. 3d 242 (2d Cir. 2015), which was decided after the Court’s summary judgment ruling, but before trial. (Dkt. 188.) In NYSRPA, the Second Circuit, inter alia, clarified that the government bears the burden of proving that the activity that is the subject of the challenged legislation falls outside the scope of the Second Amendment. 804 F.3d at 257 n.73 (explaining that the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller (“Heller” or “Heller I”), 554 U.S. 570 (2008) “identifies a presumption in favor of Second Amendment protection, which the State bears the initial burden of rebutting”).

So Heller is important…

At trial, the parties collectively submitted nunchaku sales data from six American nunchaku distributors: (1) American Nunchaku Company; (2) KarateDepot.com, a.k.a. Zengu; (3) Macho Products; (4) Swords Knives and Daggers; (5) Martial Arts Mart, a.k.a. Tigerclaw.com; and (6) AWMA. (Dkt. 199-9; Pl.’s Exhs. I & J. 9 ) Based on the data provided, at least 64,890 metal and wood nunchakus were sold to individuals in the United States between 1995 and 2018.  No evidence has been presented to explain what percentage of the United States nunchaku market share this data represents. (See Tr. 354:25–358:18 (Testimony of Susan Saraceni).) No reliable data was submitted about how many martial arts schools or dojos use nunchaku. (See Tr. 238:9–10, 278:25–279:4 (Pellitteri testifying “[t]here’s no specific data or statistics that I know of regarding the use of nunchaku as far as the number of people [using them],” but “nunchaku seem to be the most popular martial arts weapon”).)

And nunchucks are the most popular weapon in martial arts dojos and at least 64,000 nunchucks have been sold in the US…

While the logical implication of the two criteria identified in Heller—“common use” and “typical possession by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes”—is that the government need only disprove the existence of one or the other criterion to exempt the challenged law from Second Amendment coverage, the Court has concluded that the “common use” factor is ultimately irrelevant and that the government must show that, at a minimum, nunchakus are not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.  Maloney, 2018 WL 4771900, at *1, 3; see Caetano, 136 S. Ct. at 1031 (stating that the test for whether a weapon falls within the scope of the Second Amendment is “a conjunctive test: A weapon may not be banned unless it is both dangerous and unusual.”)

Based on the evidence introduced at trial, at least 64,890 metal and wood nunchaku were sold on the retail market in the United States between 1995 and 2018. Courts have not set a numerical floor for determining what constitutes “common use.” See, e.g., Hollis v. Lynch, 827 F.3d 436, 449 (5th Cir. 2016) (“Every post-Heller case to grapple with whether a weapon is ‘popular’ enough to be considered ‘in common use’ has relied on statistical data of some form, creating a consensus that common use is an objective and largely statistical inquiry.”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); Friedman v. City of Highland Park, 784 F.3d 406, 409 (7th Cir. 2015) (“[W]hat line separates ‘common’ from ‘uncommon’ ownership is something the [Supreme] Court did not say.”).25 In his concurrence in Caetano, Justice Alito found that stun guns were in “common use” because “hundreds of thousands of Tasers and stun guns have been sold to private citizens, who it appears may lawfully possess them in 45 States.”

You can see where this is going…

Therefore, the Court declares that the portions of Section 265.10(1), (2), & (4) that apply to nunchaku are void as violative of the Second Amendment.

For the reasons stated herein, the Court grants judgment in favor of Plaintiff, declaring that New York Penal Laws § 265.01(1) and § 265.10(1), (2), & (4), as applied to nunchaku, are an unconstitutional restriction on the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment and are, therefore, void. The Clerk of Court is respectfully requested to enter judgment and close this case accordingly.

A judge decided that 64,890 nunchucks used by law abiding citizens in martial arts practice in dojos is enough to pass Heller for common use and not unusual.

This is fantastic.

First of all when it comes to AR-15’s there are, at minimum estimates, 15 million in the hands of law abiding citizens.  That is more than 220 times the threshold set by this judge for “in common use.”

Second, this is the statue that bans nunchucks:

New York Penal Law § 265.01(1) (“Section 265.01(1)”) criminalizes possession of nunchaku, along with a host of other banned weapons, as a Class A misdemeanor. “A person is guilty of criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree when: (1) [h]e or she possesses any firearm, electronic dart gun, electronic stun gun, gravity knife, switchblade knife, pilum ballistic knife, metal knuckle knife, cane sword, billy, blackjack, bludgeon, plastic knuckles, metal knuckles, chuka stick, sand bag, sandclub, wrist-brace type slingshot or slungshot, shirken or ‘Kung Fu star.’” 

Note what is in bold.

I have covered New York City’s abuse of gravity knife laws to arrest just about every black person and nearly every tradesman who has a lock back pocket knife on them.  Pretty much, if the knife locks and an NYPD cop can shake it until it opens, it’s a violation of the law.

There are a lot more than 68,000 lock back knives sold in America every year.  Browsing knife catalogs, it’s hard to find a non-locking knife except Swiss Army Knives and some of the Case or Old Timer old fashioned designs.  Everything new (and made of a decent steel) is locking.  It’s safer.

The threshold set in this case could easily overturn the ban on gravity knifes.

Getting New York City to actually obey the injunction is another issue.

But with this as the new Federal standard, that opens the door for improved knife rights and gun rights, as well as challenges on less lethal weapons such as pepper spray and Tazers, across the country.

This is actual, factual good news.