If "Hawaii" and "Hawaii's statute" were substituted for all the references to "New Jersey" and "New Jersey's statute" you'd have an identical case and an identical conclusion. There is only one problem: Law enforcement in the state of Hawaii, including the Office of the Attorney General, do not recognize the Constitution of the United States, nor the Constitution of the State of Hawaii as being valid. If they kept to their sworn oaths to uphold both those documents, and abide by the Supreme Court of the United States, they'd do the same as the New Jersey AG and immediately overturn the ban. This exact issue is currently under litigation in
Young. Holding breath not recommended.
NJ Attorney General’s Office Concedes, NJ’s Stun Gun Ban Unconstitutional
http://www.ammoland.com/2016/11/nj-attorney-general-concedes-nj-stun-gun-ban-unconstitutional/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ammoland+%28ammoland%29#axzz4Ptzy4m4b “[T]he State agrees with defendant that New Jersey’s stun-gun statute, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-3h, is unconstitutional in light of Caetano v. Massachusetts, 136 S.Ct. 1027 (2016), and defendant’s conviction under that statute should be vacated in the interests of justice.”
“[T]he State agrees with defendant’s reading of United States Supreme Court precedent. To briefly recap Second-Amendment jurisprudence, the United States Supreme Court held that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 582 (2008), and that this “Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States[.]” McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742, 750 (2010).”
The AG further recognizes:
“The State is unaware of any legitimate basis to distinguish New Jersey’s stun-gun statute from Massachusetts’ statute. The New Jersey stun-gun statute, like the Massachusetts statute, criminalizes mere possession of a stun gun….. Since both statutes criminalize mere possession of a stun gun, for the reasons outlined in Caetano, New Jersey’s stun-gun statute, like Massachusetts’s statute, violates the Second Amendment.”