Is the nunchaku an instrument of murder and mayhem, or is it a practical defensive weapon? As I wrote in both my original (paragraphs 20-22) and my amended (paragraphs 25-27) complaints:

The nunchaku, unlike most other weapons, including firearms, knives, swords and all other penetrating weapons, is capable of being used in a restrained manner such that an opponent may be subdued without resorting to the use of deadly physical force.

The nunchaku, in comparison with most other arms, including firearms, is relatively safe and innocuous, such that a child or person untrained in the weapon's proper use would be unable to inflict serious injury upon him- or herself, either accidentally or intentionally.

Accordingly, nunchaku kept in the home, even if not secured in a locked compartment, are far less likely to be associated with serious injury or fatality than are most other weapons or even common household objects such as kitchen knives and scissors.

"Urban legends" persist that when these "deadly sticks" are being swung around, bones (including skulls) can be fractured with ease, even accidentally. The false underlying premise is that the centrifugal force generated is so great that the swinging stick will shatter or demolish any object it hits. In truth, unless certain nuances of striking are learned, the stick will much more readily tend to bounce or recoil off hard objects like bones. It has even been suggested (although not by any party to this case) that this hypothesized danger to anyone in the vicinity of a nunchaku-wielder would provide a rational basis for prohibiting possession of nunchaku in the homes of New Yorkers.

To put the above urban legend about nunchaku centrifugal force in perspective, it is worth remembering that there are also stories about ten-foot-long alligators in the New York City sewer system that have grown up from small pets flushed down toilets, but one hopes that a reasonable finder of fact or reviewer of an appellate record would give such myths no credence in the absence of any actual evidence or even argument supporting/asserting such a "fact."

In the litigation below, it was never even argued, let alone decided, that the State's proposed rational basis for prohibiting the possession of nunchaku in the home was related to any claim about the possibility of innocent bystanders suffering fractured arms or skulls. Instead, the State's asserted rational basis relied on the arguments found in the legislative history of the enactment. At oral argument (MP3 here), opposing counsel argued (p 4) that the State had in 1974 and still has a "strong public interest in keeping these nunchaku off the street," as evidenced by the Attorney General's civil suits.

In any event, it is beyond serious dispute that the nunchaku can be used safely and is best suited for non-lethal defensive purposes. Many police forces use it for precisely those reasons. But it does require skill and training to be used safely and effectively. Importantly, unlike any penetrating weapon, it readily lends itself in skilled hands to a measured, defensive response against even persons armed with penetrating weapons such as knives--without necessarily requiring the application of lethal force to protect oneself from the attacker(s).

IMPORTANT CAVEAT [NOTE ADDED 7/16/09]: THE ARGUMENTS RELATING TO WHETHER NEW YORK HAD A RATIONAL BASIS FOR PROHIBITING NUNCHAKU ARE IRRELEVANT IN A SECOND AMENDMENT ANALYSIS. THEY WERE MADE WELL BEFORE HELLER WAS DECIDED, AS PART OF AN ALTERNATIVE UNENUMERATED-RIGHTS ARGUMENT.


Jim Maloney
Port Washington, New York
July 15, 2009
(EDITED 7/16/09)

Click here to go to the homepage, or click here for links to many documents, including briefs, etc. in pdf.