Taser Legality from San Jose Municipal Code

[apfister]

A. To propel any flechette or dart by means of compressed gas; and
B. To include in its operation the following:
1. Mechanical energy from an external source is supplied to the device;
2. The device compresses gas; and
3. The compressed gas propels the flechette or dart.
(Ords. 22166, 22167.)

[Librarian]

Since Tasers use compressed gas, looks like they might be covered by the code you quote. But the tasers themselves do not compress the gas - I believe the cartridges come pre-filled - so maybe they're not covered by the 'sale/possession' part.

[Tincon]

I talked about the Taser case law before: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=362568

Heffner reasoned that as the Taser used an "explosion" to launch the projectiles, it was a firearm. As the modern Taser uses a variance between the relative gas pressure in a pressurized cylinder and atmospheric pressure to launch the barbs, there is no explosion, and no firearm. Heffner cannot not apply to the Modern Taser.

Now, that said (and the above is what I would argue), the case law HAS NOT changed. In fact, as recently as 2012 in People v. Ortiz, the court cited Heffner to justify its conclusion that the Taser WAS A FIREARM.

My opinion on Ortiz is that counsel for the defendant(s) in that case, really screwed up big time. Reading the opinion it does not seem like they questioned the Taser being a firearm at all, probably based on Heffner, and their lack of understanding as to how the design has changed. However, that is the state of things. Be careful out there, don't consent to searches, don't talk to the police, get a good lawyer immediately.

The above is not legal advice.

tl;dr version: There is a state law problem as well.

Strictly speaking, I don't think a Taser fits the description in the code you posted. But given the likelihood of legal problems anyway, I'd consult a lawyer before I carried one there.

[strongpoint]

do you even need to get to 10.32.150? it looks like 10.32.140 covers it via:

seems like a taser fits into that particular box.

[apfister]

Thanks for the responses, I'll stick to carrying a can of OC.

[Doheny]

Thanks for the responses, I'll stick to carrying a can of OC.

Unfortunately, probably a good idea. Many cities have "catch all" muni ords that prohibit any type of projectile from any type of device. Looks like that's what SJ is trying to accomplish.

[tag_heuer]

A.To propel any flechette or dart by means of compressed gas; and
B.To include in its operation the following:
1.Mechanical energy from an external source is supplied to the device;
2.The device compresses gas; and
3.The compressed gas propels the flechette or dart.
(Ords. 22166, 22167.)

I work for SJPD. I've had a case where a home owner tased a guy when he broke into his home. I shook his hand. Trust me. You don't need to worry about owning or possessing a taser. The purpose of the ordinance is not to punish you. If you use it in self defense of yourself or others you are covered. What you are not covered is if you use it illegally such as in a robbery or an assault. In that case some lame city ordinance is the least of your problems.

The same goes for firearms. They are for self defense. I am a strong believer in 2A, and would like to see everyone in CA who is law abiding be able to carry a firearm or if you want a taser.

I do not know of any SJPD officer who would hassle you with this ordinance. Further, most of us don't even know about this ordinance. We rarely use city ordinances. The penal code would cover these problems.

I hope this puts your concern to rest

[dantodd]

I work for SJPD. I've had a case where a home owner tased a guy when he broke into his home. I shook his hand. Trust me. You don't need to worry about owning or possessing a taser. The purpose of the ordinance is not to punish you. If you use it in self defense of yourself or others you are covered. What you are not covered is if you use it illegally such as in a robbery or an assault. In that case some lame city ordinance is the least of your problems.

The same goes for firearms. They are for self defense. I am a strong believer in 2A, and would like to see everyone in CA who is law abiding be able to carry a firearm or if you want a taser.

I do not know of any SJPD officer who would hassle you with this ordinance. Further, most of us don't even know about this ordinance. We rarely use city ordinances. The penal code would cover these problems.

I hope this puts your concern to rest

No offense to you directly but this is EXACTLY what is wrong with the laws in our nation.

The idea that we can just pass laws that make MANY MANY people criminals and then selectively enforce those laws only against people who are "troublemakers" or "the wrong kind" is incredibly offensive.

Laws should be few and very strictly enforced. Not so complex and irregularly enforced that everyone is a criminal and simply not charged because they have yet to piss off a cop or prosecutor.

[tag_heuer]

No offense to you directly but this is EXACTLY what is wrong with the laws in our nation.



The idea that we can just pass laws that make MANY MANY people criminals and then selectively enforce those laws only against people who are "troublemakers" or "the wrong kind" is incredibly offensive.



Laws should be few and very strictly enforced. Not so complex and irregularly enforced that everyone is a criminal and simply not charged because they have yet to piss off a cop or prosecutor.

No offenses taken, I agree with a lot of what you said. I'm glad I have some discretion in my decision making. I hate laws that turn law abiding persons into criminal such as having one too many rounds in a magazine. My point, and I'm really not looking to pick a fight, is not to worry about some city ordinance. It is legal to carry a taser. And if you use it in self defense I applaud you. I know the men and women of the San Jose police department are not perfect. I'm not perfect. I always try to exercise my best judgement as a police officer. I'm no different than anyone else. I'm no better or no worse. I try to treat everyone as though I would want to be treated by a police officer. With respect. I am a reasonable person who does not want to see anyone's rights violated. I love having the 2A and truly wish politicians would keep they're hands off of it. I believe everyone should have the right to carry a gun if they so choose.

[stix213]

Since Tasers use compressed gas, looks like they might be covered by the code you quote. But the tasers themselves do not compress the gas - I believe the cartridges come pre-filled - so maybe they're not covered by the 'sale/possession' part.

I agree ^^^

They come pre-filled, and have no capability to actually compress any gas themselves. I believe the "; and" in 2 saves tasers.

If you have to use it, well.... you're probably better off facing the chance of this ordinance hitting you than whatever you're defending yourself from hitting you.