Maloney v. Rice: The Nunchaku Case

Welcome to the homepage for Maloney v. Rice (aka Maloney v. Cuomo), the ongoing federal constitutional case that challenges only the in-home enforcement of New York's 35-year-old complete ban* on possession of the martial-arts weapon known as the nunchaku (pictured above and below). The mere possession of nunchaku or "chuka sticks" within one's own home for peaceful use in martial-arts practice (or for home defense) by a person with no criminal record is classified as a misdemeanor that may carry up to a one-year prison sentence. Possession by a person who "has been previously convicted of any crime" is defined as a felony. Based upon research that I have conducted, it appears that New York and California are the only states in the United States that have ever defined and prosecuted as a crime the simple possession of nunchaku within one's own home. (Ironically, the nunchaku, which was originally a farm implement, was adapted for use as a weapon by the People of Okinawa after invading oppressive governments disarmed them, making it illegal to possess a sword or spear.**)

The Supreme Court has recently granted certiorari in the McDonald case, but has not denied it in Maloney v. Rice. It would thus appear that the Court will, if it incorporates the Second Amendment, remand Maloney v. Rice for further proceedings consistent with its anticipated June 2010 decision in McDonald v. Chicago.

Click here for free access to a library of documents, mostly in pdf.
Click here for a brief discussion about the nunchaku in response to recent public commentary about its alleged dangers. (See also this page.)
Click here for my overview, Forbidden Sticks: A Four-Century Blog Tour (1609-2009) (nunchakulaw.blogspot.com).
Click here for a brief discussion about the arguments made (and not made) by or on behalf of New York in support of its total prohibition on possession of nunchaku.
Click here for a brief discussion about the Second Amendment and the process of "incorporation" as against the states.
Click here to go to the old homepage for Maloney v. Spitzer (as the case was originally captioned), where you will find an explanation of the case and links to my journal-entry blogs through May 14, 2004.
Click here to view my news-item blogs through December 13, 2007.

CLICK HERE FOR LIBRARY OF DOCUMENTS

********************************************

CONTACT ME

James M. Maloney
P.O. Box 551
Port Washington, NY 11050
(516) 767-1395
Email me at maritimelaw[at]nyu.edu.
Click here to visit my NYU academic homepage.

This web page is hosted solely by James M. Maloney. It was created and modified
using Bluefish HTML editor, and was last updated on December 18, 2009.



* The statutes banning nunchaku or "chuka sticks" went into effect on September 1, 1974, and contain no exception for possession of nunchaku in the home for peaceful use in martial-arts practice or for self-defense. Shortly before the ban was enacted, New York's own Division of Criminal Justice Services (part of the Executive Department) sent a memorandum to then-Governor Wilson urging that the bill not be signed into law because many members of the public use nunchaku in martial-arts training and because "it appears unreasonable--and perhaps even unconstitutional--to prohibit those who have a legitimate reason for possessing chuka sticks from doing so." The total ban on nunchaku was nevertheless enacted. Now, more than 35 years later, Maloney v. Rice is challenging only the application of those statutes to simple in-home possession, but does not take issue with the laws as applied to prohibit the carrying of nunchaku in public or in a vehicle.

** See page 1 of Plaintiff's Brief in Support of Summary Judgment Motion (August 8, 2004), where I wrote: It is widely accepted as historical fact that the nunchaku was adapted for use as a weapon by the people of Okinawa as part of the development of karate during the early Seventeenth Century, after the Japanese invaded the island and banned the possession (presumably even in one's home) of traditional weapons such as sword and spear. See Maloney Declaration at paragraph 9; see also S. Halbrook, "Oriental Philosophy, Martial Arts and Class Struggle," 2 Social Praxis 135, 139 (1974) (Exh. 5) (noting that the invading Japanese Satsuma clan "banned all weapons but its own and brutally suppressed the population" and that a "people's revolutionary movement organized clandestinely, and its activities centered around the development of karate for peasant self-defense against the imperial dictatorship").