Supreme Court REPUDIATES Massachussetts stun gun ban 8-0

[Gary L. Griffiths]

Read all about it: Follow link then click on 3/21/16 - Caetano v. Massachusetts on right side of page

http://www.supremecourt.gov/

A couple of interesting points. It pretty much dismisses arguments that the 2nd Amendment applies only to late 18th Century arms. It also concerns carrying arms outside the home.

It seems even the liberal justices react negatively to lower courts simply ignoring their rulings!

[Aguila Blanca]

Link doesn't work for me.

[Edit]Found one that does: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...utm_medium=RSS

Wow!

“The Commonwealth of Massachusetts was either unable or unwilling to do what was necessary to protect Jaime Caetano, so she was forced to protect herself,” Justice Alito wrote. “To make matters worse, the Commonwealth chose to deploy its prosecutorial resources to prosecute and convict her of a criminal offense for arming herself with a nonlethal weapon that may well have saved her life. The Supreme Judicial Court then affirmed her conviction on the flimsiest of grounds.”

Maybe Alito and Thomas are going to take off the gloves in order to preserve Scalia's legacy. But it's both surprising and encouraging that this decision was 8-0. Of course ... it didn't involve firearms, it involved a purely defensive weapon.

Did y'all know that Massachusetts also bans private ownership of pepper spray? And that the Massachusetts state constitution, of all places, uses a collective rights version of the RKBA?

[gc70]

A direct link to the ruling: Jaime Caetano v. Massachusetts, 14-10078.

[Shenna9220]

Wonder what effect this will have on the Maryland appeals case involving assault style weapons? Seems to kick that decision right in the shins.

[johnwilliamson062]

it involved a purely defensive weapon.

Less lethal? Yes. Purely defensive? I don't agree.

There are very few circles where a female utilizing a weapon to defend herself from a man is not acceptable.

Caetano’s abuser towered over her by nearly a foot and outweighed her by close to 100 pounds.

If only all these cases had similar defendants.

[Spats McGee]

Alito and Thomas were clearly unhappy at having Heller and McDonald so thoroughly ignored by the SJC. It's just so hard to pick a favorite passage yet, but I have to say that I really like this one:

It is hard to imagine language speaking more directly to the point. Yet the Supreme Judicial Court did not so much as mention it.

Ouch.

I also like this one:

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the conviction, holding that a stun gun “is not the type of weapon that is eligible for Second Amendment protection” because it was “not in common use at the time of [the Second Amendment’s] enactment.” . . . .

This reasoning defies our decision in Heller, which rejected as “bordering on the frivolous” the argument “that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.” 554 U. S., at 582. The decision below also does a grave disservice to vulnerable individuals like Caetano who must defend themselves because the State will not.

Caetano v. Massachusetts, No. 14-10078, 2016 WL 1078932 (U.S. Mar. 21, 2016).

ETA: Y'all know that my opinion is worth what you've paid for it . . . Still, I'd call this a judicial beatdown if I've ever seen one.

[Gary L. Griffiths]

Kinda like how this case put the rather liberal female justices between a rock and a hard place. While they probably were lukewarm at best to extending 2nd Amendment rights, they didn't wish to deny a female stalking/assault victim her right to self-defense. Ultimately, will make it more difficult for them to articulate how carrying firearms for self-defense is not Constitutionally protected.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Gary L. Griffiths

Kinda like how this case put the rather liberal female justices between a rock and a hard place. While they probably were lukewarm at best to extending 2nd Amendment rights, they didn't wish to deny a female stalking/assault victim her right to self-defense.

I was thinking along similar lines. I wonder if the vote would have been 8:0 if the appellant had been a male ...

[NJgunowner]

See now I have to wonder how this will effect states like new jersey that outright bans stun guns?

[Gary L. Griffiths]

See now I have to wonder how this will effect states like new jersey that outright bans stun guns?

Essentially, those bans are now Unconstitutional. Of course, in the immortal words of Yogi Berra, "It ain't over 'till it's over!" MA could come up with some other reason to uphold their law, but it's difficult to see how they'd do it solely on grounds not addressed in the Supremes' decision. NJ might also argue that their ban is Constitutional based on different grounds, but I doubt that would go very far.

It will probably die a quiet death, unlamented by the gun community.

[NJgunowner]

The sad thing is NJ will continue to prosecute anyone they find who owns a stun gun and make them go through the hassle of multiple court cases.

[carguychris]

Nobody has yet brought up another very significant part of this ruling (my emphasis underlined).

As the foregoing makes clear, the pertinent Second Amendment inquiry is whether stun guns are commonly possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes today. The Supreme Judicial Court offered only a cursory discussion of that question, noting that the “‘number of Tasers and stun guns is dwarfed by the number of firearms.’”... This observation may be true, but it is beside the point. Otherwise, a State would be free to ban all weapons except handguns, because “handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home.” Heller, supra, at 629... The more relevant statistic is that “[h]undreds of thousands of Tasers and stun guns have been sold to private citizens,” who it appears may lawfully possess them in 45 States... While less popular than handguns, stun guns are widely owned and accepted as a legitimate means of self-defense across the country. Massachusetts’ categorical ban of such weapons therefore violates the Second Amendment.

The ruling explicitly states that Heller 2A protection applies to commonly possessed arms OTHER than semi-automatic handguns. This preemptively undermines the specious claim by some antis that Heller 2A protection only applies very narrowly to semi-automatic handguns.

[kilimanjaro]

I could be wrong, but I can easily see the liberal women on the court squirming for a way to dissent on this ruling, then giving up once they found they were between a political rock and a legal hard place.

Listen for something like this :

Of course, the SCOTUS is still wrong on the 2nd Amendment, and such clearly and erroneously political rulings such as this one can only be addressed by ensuring the next two or three Justices nominated to the Court are liberals. They had no business linking a common-sense ruling in favor of women's rights to the fight against weapons of war on our streets.

If you like spin, you can keep your spin.

[zukiphile]

I would like to know why Roberts' name isn't on the concurring opinion.

[MurBob]

Wow. If I read that opinion correctly, it basically says that Massachusetts thinks anything more advanced than a musket loader should be banned.

Apparently, their supreme court needs to pull their heads out of their collective rear ends.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Roberts was on the much terser; but similarly themed per curiam opinion. An unsigned per curiam opinion is usually a pretty brief decision confirming an uncontroversial point of law.

So it is 8-0 that as long as Heller is precedent, that the Second Amendment protects arms not in use at the time of the Founders and that it protects non-military arms as well. It is worth noting though that 3 of the Justices signing this opinion think Heller should be reversed.

We can also see Alito and Thomas feel the lower courts have been disregarding the Heller and McDonald rulings and are ready to push back, even if other members of the Court haven't reached that point yet.

[Spats McGee]

I have to put my tinfoil hat on and point out one other item:

Originally Posted by ALITO & THOMAS

If the fundamental right of self-defense does not protect Caetano, then the safety of all Americans is left to the mercy of state authorities who may be more concerned about disarming the people than about keeping them safe.

Caetano v. Massachusetts, No. 14-10078, 2016 WL 1078932, at *7 (U.S. Mar. 21, 2016)

Here's where my tinfoil hat comes in: The MSM has ridiculed gun owners for decades, told us that our tinfoil hats were on too tight, and trotted out every wild-eyed bozo who could do an interview without slobbering on the microphone in an attempt to discredit the idea that our government would *ever* want us disarmed. Two sitting United States Supreme Court Justices, both graduates of Yale Law School, have just admitted "state authorities . . . may be more concerned about disarming people than keeping them safe."

[kilimanjaro]

The wild-eyed bozos will still say no one is coming for your guns, just look at Obama, he says it all the time.

It's called distraction. Look them in the eye, lie through your teeth, and stab them in the back while smiling all the while.

[Spats McGee]

Originally Posted by kilimanjaro

The wild-eyed bozos will still say no one is coming for your guns, just look at Obama, he says it all the time.

It's called distraction. Look them in the eye, lie through your teeth, and stab them in the back while smiling all the while.

Oh, no. I'm talking about the wild-eyed bozos who say that the gov't is coming for your guns. You know, the ones they interview to make all of us (gun owners) look like a bunch of uneducated conspiracy theorists.

[Brian Pfleuger]

I've read quite a few of these opinions over the years. I have to say, you will *rarely* see one where the High Court so openly and obviously excoriates the lower court.

This decision is as significant, IMO, for the tone as for the legal content.

Generally the High Court sets a tone to allow the lower court to "save face", in a sense. Along the lines of "Your decision is logical perhaps but you should have looked at it this way."

This time, they all but said "You can't possibly be this ignorant. We know you're doing this on purpose. Go back, and get it right this time, you fools."

[kilimanjaro]

Spats, those drooling knuckledraggers under the tinfoil hats are the distraction. While you are thanking God you were not born that stupid, the gun takers are sneaking up behind you.

[NJgunowner]

Since they came out in defense of "in common use" used in Heller not being limited to handguns, where does that leave things like magazine size restrictions, some states ban flash suppressors, etc? These things are in common use, so wouldn't they fall into the same category as tasers and stun guns, and hence be protected? Or am I just dreaming?

[johnwilliamson062]

This time, they all but said "You can't possibly be this ignorant. We know you're doing this on purpose. Go back, and get it right this time, you fools."

But what teeth do they have to back it up? They will, at minimum, put a ridiculous voltage or cycle limit on the things no manufacturer currently complies with in production models.

[tyme]

Originally Posted by johnwilliamson062

Less lethal? Yes. Purely defensive? I don't agree.

I don't think "purely defensive weapon" makes any sense. Any weapon that can stop or slow down an attacker can be used offensively, too.

A little bit of pain might not stop a victim from fighting back, but then again just the threat of an unknown weapon (most people have not tried a stun gun out on themselves) could easily convince a victim in some circumstances not to fight back, if the aggressor's demands are "reasonable" enough.

[Brian Pfleuger]

Originally Posted by johnwilliamson062

But what teeth do they have to back it up? They will, at minimum, put a ridiculous voltage or cycle limit on the things no manufacturer currently complies with in production models.

Well, yes, on the flip side, this is a small victory and hardly one at all in reality. The antis will do what they always do... change a few requirements or sentences of the law or rewrite the same basic ban from a different angle and start the whole process over.

It takes less than a day to write and pass a terrible law (see NY SAFE Act) and 10 years to get it through the courts and "defeat" it, only to have another one of the same effect passed and in effect 24 hours later.

The biggest failure of foresight from our Founders, IMO, was not seeing the likelihood of attacks against the Republic from "the inside", using the system against itself, combined with not imagining that We The People would so thoroughly and completely lose control of our local and state government.

We simply have no structure, beyond voting out the politicians who appoint the judges, for defeating these kinds of people and "we", collectively, are too ignorant and/or complacent and/or complicit to make that change.