The Eighth Post (including news about my gravity knife case)

Gravity Knife News

In another constitutional case of mine, Cracco v. Vance, I had been challenging the application of New York’s ban on “gravity knives” to certain folding knives.  The challenge was based on the doctrine of vagueness rather than on the Second Amendment.  On March 27, 2019, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted my motion for summary judgment.  A copy of the decision may be found here, and a memo by Legal Aid interpreting the Cracco decision shorty after it was handed down may be found here.  Journalist David Codrea has written an online article abut the Cracco decision that also mentions my nunchaku case as well as the challenge to New York’s ban on “electronic dart guns” and “electronic stun guns” that was won in March by attorneys Alan Beck (pictured at left with me at the Patriot Saloon in December 2018) and his colleague Stephen Stamboulieh.

Jim Maloney
May 2, 2019

Recent Nunchaku Case News

On December 14, 2018, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York rendered a final decision  in Maloney v. Singas, my pro se constitutional case, striking down virtually all of the provisions of the New York Penal Code that ban the possession, sale, manufacture, or transfer of nunchaku.  In doing so, the Court granted relief somewhat beyond what I had asked for (but I am not about to complain).  Thanks to the many who have helped in many ways along the way.  It has been a path with heart.

A pdf copy of the Courts December 14, 2018, findings of fact and conclusions of law (the decision) may be viewed or downloaded by clicking the nunchaku and Bill of Rights displayed above.  If you are using a mobile device and that image is not visible, click here instead.

The decision was not appealed, so it is now legal to possess nunchaku in New York.  But...

IMPORTANT WARNING: Displaying, swinging, or twirling nunchaku in public within the State of New York could still give rise to criminal charges (menacing, disorderly conduct, etc.).  Please respect those around you by practicing only in safe and private locations where no bystanders can be injured or intimidated.

Watch the Newsday video clip here.
Read my NY Daily News OpEd piece here.

--Jim Maloney
 aka Professor Nunchucks
January 26, 2019

Opening statement (January 9, 2017)

The trial we are about to begin concerns the right of the people to keep and bear arms. As recently as ten years ago, the Supreme Court still had not given meaning and content to the provision in the Constitution that sets forth that right, although the Second Amendment has been part of our Constitution since 1791. Today, the balance between the exercise of that right and the recalcitrant plague of gun violence in America is finally beginning to be worked out. It will probably take decades for the courts and the legislatures to strike that balance in a way that protects us all from such horrific incidents as mass shootings at schools, movie theaters, and airports, while at the same time guaranteeing that the Second Amendment, which was first applied to the states only 6½ years ago in McDonald v. Chicago, is given real meaning and substance. Actually, we may never get it right, but I try to be an optimist, because I believe that the “path of the common law,” as Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. put it, is also, as Carlos Castañeda put it through his character Don Juan, a “path with heart.” Nothing in this case has anything to do with guns, or with carrying weapons on the street, or with mass shootings at schools, movie theaters, or airports. And yet, this case has everything to do with all of those things, because the path of the common law is also in some ways like the path of a particle in a quantum physics experiment: it travels in many different directions, all at once, because precedents are often applied in ways that aren’t always foreseen, or even reasonably foreseeable, when they’re made. So there is actually a lot more at stake here than might meet the eye at first glance. Can we get it right? Well, we can try. Right now the only question before us is whether the nunchaku, an ancient martial arts weapon, is commonly used for lawful purposes today. In a few years, the key Second Amendment questions may be somewhat different, so I ask the Court to be patient if it appears that at times I am straying from the path the Court has defined in order to establish a record that may become relevant down the road. And I also ask the Court to remember that the relief I’m seeking here, and have been seeking for nearly 14 years now, is real, and personal, separate and apart from all those big-picture considerations I’ve just described. But I have a duty, I think, to try to address both. Is it possible for me, one human being, acting alone, to fulfill that duty? No.