Sweeper13 Posted March 21, 2016 at 04:37 PM Share Posted March 21, 2016 at 04:37 PM http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/03/21/supreme-court-stun-gun-second-amendment/76313848/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Posted March 21, 2016 at 05:00 PM Share Posted March 21, 2016 at 05:00 PM SWEEEET!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glock23 Posted March 21, 2016 at 05:05 PM Share Posted March 21, 2016 at 05:05 PM Sweeter if they had made an actual decision, rather than simply telling the state supreme court to basically take another look and try again... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauserme Posted March 21, 2016 at 05:12 PM Share Posted March 21, 2016 at 05:12 PM Some interesting guidance. Did my best to keep it formatted correctly. http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/032116zor_h3ci.pdf Cite as: 577 U. S. ____ (2016) Per Curiam SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES JAIME CAETANO v. MASSACHUSETTS ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS No. 1410078. Decided March 21, 2016PER CURIAM . The Court has held that the Second Amendment ex- tends, 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 Amend- ment right is fully applicable to the States,McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 750 (2010). In this case, the Su- preme Judicial Court of Massachusetts upheld a Massa- chusetts law prohibiting the possession of stun guns after examining whether a stun gun is the type of weapon contemplated by Congress in 1789 as being protected by the Second Amendment. 470 Mass. 774, 777, 26 N. E. 3d 688, 691 (2015). The court offered three explanations to support its holding that the Second Amendment does not extend to stun guns. First, the court explained that stun guns are not protected because they were not in common use at the time of the Second Amendments enactment.Id.,at 781, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693. This is inconsistent with Hellers clear statement that the Second Amendment extends . . . to . . . arms . . . that were not in existence at the time of the founding. 554 U. S., at 582. The court next asked whether stun guns are dangerous per se at common law and unusual, 470 Mass., at 781, 26 N. E. 3d, at 694, in an attempt to apply one important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms,Heller, 554 U. S., at 627; seeibid.(referring to the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and 2 CAETANO v. MASSACHUSETTS Per Curiamunusual weapons). In so doing, the court concluded that stun guns are unusual because they are a thoroughly modern invention. 470 Mass., at 781, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693694. By equating unusual with in common use at the time of the Second Amendments enactment, the courts second explanation is the same as the first; it is inconsistent with Heller for the same reason. Finally, the court used a contemporary lens and found nothing in the record to suggest that [stun guns] are readily adaptable to use in the military. 470 Mass., at 781, 26 N. E. 3d, at 694. But Heller rejected the proposi- tion that only those weapons useful in warfare are pro- tected. 554 U. S., at 624625. For these three reasons, the explanation the Massachu- setts court offered for uphold ing the law contradicts this Courts precedent. Consequently, the petition for a writ of certiorari and the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis are granted. The judgment of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. It is so ordered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauserme Posted March 21, 2016 at 05:17 PM Share Posted March 21, 2016 at 05:17 PM And the concurrence. There was no dissent. http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/032116zor_h3ci.pdf Cite as: 577 U. S. ____ (2016) ALITO, J., concurring in judgment SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES JAIME CAETANO v. MASSACHUSETTS ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS No. 1410078. Decided March 21, 2016 JUSTICE ALITO, with whom JUSTICE THOMAS joins, concurring in the judgment. After a bad altercation with an abusive boyfriend put her in the hospital, Jaime Caetano found herself homeless and in fear for [her] life. Tr. 31, 38 (July 10, 2013). She obtained multiple restraining orders against her abuser, but they proved futile. So when a friend offered her a stun gun for self-defense against [her] former boy friend, 470 Mass. 774, 776, 26 N. E. 3d 688, 690 (2015), Caetano accepted the weapon. It is a good thing she did. One night after leaving work, Caetano found her ex-boyfriend waiting for [her] outside. Tr. 35. He started screaming that she was not gonna [expletive deleted] work at this place any more because she should be home with the kids they had together. Ibid. Caetanos abuser towered over her by nearly a foot and outweighed her by close to 100 pounds. But she didnt need physical strength to protect herself. She stood her ground, displayed the stun gun, and announced: Im not gonna take this anymore. . . . I dont wanna have to [use the stun gun on] you, but if you dont leave me alone, Im gonna have to. Id., at 3536. The gambit worked. The ex-boyfriend got scared and he left [her] alone. Id., at 36. It is settled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms that applies against both the Federal Government and the States. District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570 (2008); McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742 (2010). That right 2 CAETANO v. MASSACHUSETTS ALITO, J., concurring in judgment vindicates the basic right of individual self-defense. Id., at 767; see Heller, supra, at 599, 628. Caetanos en counter with her violent ex-boyfriend illustrates the con nection between those fundamental rights: By arming herself, Caetano was able to protect against a physical threat that restraining orders had proved useless to pre vent. And, commendably, she did so by using a weapon that posed little, if any, danger of permanently harming either herself or the father of her children. Under Massachusetts law, however, Caetanos mere possession of the stun gun that may have saved her life made her a criminal. See Mass. Gen. Laws, ch. 140, §131J (2014). When police later discovered the weapon, she was arrested, tried, and convicted. The Massachusetts Su preme 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 Amendments] enactment. 470 Mass., at 781, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693. 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 pro tected 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. I The events leading to Caetanos prosecution occurred sometime after the confrontation between her and her ex- boyfriend. In September 2011,police officers responded to a reported shoplifting at an Ashland, Massachusetts, supermarket. The stores manager had detained a sus pect, but he identified Caetano and another person in the parking lot as potential accomplices. Police approached the two and obtained Caetanos consent to search her Cite as: 577 U. S. ____ (2016) ALITO, J., concurring in judgment purse. They found no evidence of shoplifting, but saw Caetanos stun gun. Caetano explained to the officers that she had acquired the weapon to defend herself against a violent ex-boyfriend. The officers believed Caetano, but they arrested her for violating Mass. Gen. Laws, ch. 140, §131J, which bans entirely the possession of an electrical weapon, 470 Mass., at 775, 26 N. E. 3d, at 689.1 When Caetano moved to dismiss the charge on Second Amendment grounds, the trial court denied the motion. A subsequent bench trial established the following undisputed facts. The parties stipulated that Caetano possessed the stun gun and that the weapon fell within the statutes prohibition.2 The Commonwealth also did not challenge Caetanos testimony that she possessed the weapon to defend herself against the violent ex-boyfriend. Indeed, the prosecutor urged the court to believe the defendant. Tr. 40. The trial court nonetheless found 1 Specifically, the statute prohibits the possession of any portable device or weapon from which an electrical current, impulse, wave or beam may be directed, which current, impulse, wave or beam is de signed to incapacitate temporarily, injure or kill. Mass. Gen. Laws, ch. 140, §131J (2014). The statute includes exceptions for law- enforcement officers and weapon suppliers, who may possess electrical weapons designed to incapacitate temporarily. Ibid. Violations are punishable by a fine of $500 to $1,000, imprisonment of 6 months to 2½ years, or both. Ibid. 2 Stun guns like Caetanos are designed to stun a person with an electrical current by running a current between two metal prongs on the device and placing the prongs in direct contact with the person. 470 Mass. 774, 775, n. 2, 26 N. E. 3d 688, 689, n. 2 (2015). A similar device, popularly known by the brand name Taser, shoots out wires tipped with electrodes that can deliver an electrical current from a distance. Tr. 2526. Tasers can also be used like a stun gun without deploying the electrodesa so-called dry stun. Id., at 26. As the Common wealths witness testified at trial, these sorts of electrical weapons are non-lethal force designed to incapacitatenot killa target. Id., at 27. 4 CAETANO v. MASSACHUSETTS ALITO, J., concurring in judgment Caetano guilty, and she appealed to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. The Supreme Judicial Court rejected Caetanos Second Amendment claim, holding that a stun gun is not the type of weapon that is eligible for Second Amendment protec tion. 470 Mass., at 775, 26 N. E. 3d, at 689. The court reasoned that stun guns are unprotected because they were not in common use at the time of enactment of the Second Amendment, id., at 781, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693 (quot ing Heller, supra, at 627), and because they fall within the traditional prohibition against carrying dangerous and unusual weapons, 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692 (citing Heller, supra, at 627). II Although the Supreme Judicial Court professed to apply Heller, each step of its analysis defied Hellers reasoning. A The state court repeatedly framed the question before it as whether a particular weapon was in common use at the time of enactment of the Second Amendment. 470 Mass., at 781, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693; see also id., at 779, 780, 781, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692, 693, 694. In Heller, we emphati cally rejected such a formulation. We found the argument that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment not merely wrong, but bordering on the frivolous. 554 U. S., at 582. In stead, we 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. Ibid. (emphasis added).3 It is hard to 3 Stun guns are plainly bearable arms. As Heller explained, the term includes any [w]eapo[n] of offence or thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, that is carr[ied] . . . for the purpose of offensive or defensive action. 554 U. S., at 581, 584 (inter Cite as: 577 U. S. ____ (2016) ALITO, J., concurring in judgment imagine language speaking more directly to the point. Yet the Supreme Judicial Court did not so much as mention it. Instead, the court seized on language, originating in United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 (1939), that the sorts of weapons protected were those in common use at the time. 470 Mass., at 778, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692 (quot ing Heller, supra, at 627, in turn quoting Miller, supra, at 179). That quotation does not mean, as the court below thought, that only weapons popular in 1789 are covered by the Second Amendment. It simply reflects the reality that the founding-era militia consisted of citizens who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty, Heller, 554 U. S., at 627, and that the Second Amendment accordingly guarantees the right to carry weapons typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, id., at 625. While stun guns were not in existence at the end of the 18th century, the same is true for the weapons most commonly used today for self-defense, namely, revolvers and semiautomatic pistols. Revolvers were virtually unknown until well into the 19th century,4 and semiautomatic pistols were not invented until near the end of that century.5 Electronic stun guns are no more exempt from the Second Amend ments protections, simply because they were unknown to the First Congress, than electronic communications are exempt from the First Amendment, or electronic imaging devices are exempt from the Fourth Amendment. Id., at 582 (citing Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 nal quotation marks omitted). 4 See J. Bilby, A Revolution in Arms: A History of the First Repeating Rifles 23 (2006). Samuel Colt did not patent his famous revolver until 1836. Ibid. 5 See Firearms: An Illustrated History 166 (2014); see also W. Greener, The Gun and Its Development 524529, 531534 (9th ed. 1910) (dis cussing revolvers and self-loading semiautomatic pistols as modern pistols). 6 CAETANO v. MASSACHUSETTS ALITO, J., concurring in judgment U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 3536 (2001)). As Heller aptly put it: We do not inter pret constitutional rights that way. 554 U. S., at 582. B The Supreme Judicial Courts holding that stun guns may be banned as dangerous and unusual weapons fares no better. As the per curiam opinion recognizes, this is a conjunctive test: A weapon may not be banned unless it is both dangerous and unusual. Because the Court rejects the lower courts conclusion that stun guns are unusual, it does not need to consider the lower courts conclusion that they are also dangerous. See ante, at 12. But make no mistakethe decision below gravely erred on both grounds. 1 As to dangerous, the court below held that a weapon is dangerous per se if it is designed and constructed to produce death or great bodily harm and for the purpose of bodily assault or defense. 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692 (quoting Commonwealth v. Appleby, 380 Mass. 296, 303, 402 N. E. 2d 1051, 1056 (1980)). That test may be appropriate for applying statutes criminalizing assault with a dangerous weapon. See ibid., 402 N. E. 2d, at 1056. But it cannot be used to identify arms that fall outside the Second Amendment. First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting dangerous and unusual weap ons that may be banned with protected weapons . . . in common use at the time). Second, even in cases where dangerousness might be relevant, the Supreme Judicial Courts test sweeps far too broadly. Heller defined the Arms covered by the Second Amendment to include any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his 7 Cite as: 577 U. S. ____ (2016) ALITO, J., concurring in judgment hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another. 554 U. S., at 581. Under the decision below, however, virtually every covered arm would qualify as dangerous. Were there any doubt on this point, one need only look at the courts first example of dangerous per se weapons: firearms. 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692. If Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous. 554 U. S., at 636. A fortiori, stun guns that the Common wealths own witness described as non-lethal force, Tr. 27, cannot be banned on that basis. 2 The Supreme Judicial Courts conclusion that stun guns are unusual rested largely on its premise that one must ask whether a weapon was commonly used in 1789. See 470 Mass., at 780781, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693694. As al ready discussed, that is simply wrong. See supra, at 46. The court also opined that a weapons unusualness depends on whether it is a weapon of warfare to be used by the militia. 470 Mass., at 780, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693. It asserted that we followed such an approach in Miller and approved its use in Heller. 470 Mass., at 780, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693. But Heller actually said that it would be a startling reading of Miller to conclude that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected. 554 U. S., at 624. Instead, Miller and Heller recognized that militia members traditionally reported for duty carrying the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home, and that the Second Amendment therefore protects such weapons as a class, regardless of any particular weapons suitability for military use. 554 U. S., at 627; see id., at 624625. Indeed, Heller acknowledged that advancements in military technology might render many commonly owned weapons ineffective in warfare. Id., at 627628. But such modern developments . . . cannot change our 8 CAETANO v. MASSACHUSETTS ALITO, J., concurring in judgment interpretation of the right. Ibid. In any event, the Supreme Judicial Courts assumption that stun guns are unsuited for militia or military use is untenable. Section 131J allows law enforcement and correctional officers to carry stun guns and Tasers, pre sumably for such purposes as nonlethal crowd control. Subduing members of a mob is little different from sup press[ing] Insurrections, a traditional role of the militia. U. S. Const., Art. I, §8, cl. 15; see also ibid. (militia may be called forth to execute the Laws of the Union). Addition ally, several branches of the U. S. armed services equip troops with electrical stun weapons to incapacitate a target without permanent injury or known side effects. U. S. Army, Project Manager Close Combat Systems, PD Combat Munitions: Launched Electrode Stun Device (LESD), http://www.pica.army.mil/pmccs/combatmunitions/ nonlethalsys/taserx26e.html (all Internet materials as last visited Mar. 18, 2016); see U. S. Marine Corps Admin- istrative Message 560/08 (Oct. 2, 2008) (Marine Corps guidance for use of Tasers), http://www.marines.mil/ News/ Messages/MessagesDisplay/tabid/13286/Article/1130 24/marine-corps-training-and-use-of-human-electro-muscular incapacitation-hemi-dev.aspx; Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Directorate, Non-Lethal Weapons (NLW) Reference Book 3 (2012) (Department of Defense report stating that [m]ultiple Services employ Tasers), http://dtic.mil/dtic/ tr/fulltext/u2/a565971.pdf. C 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 fire arms. 470 Mass., at 781, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693. This ob 9 Cite as: 577 U. S. ____ (2016) ALITO, J., concurring in judgment servation may be true, but it is beside the point. Other wise, 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 thou sands of Tasers and stun guns have been sold to private citizens, who it appears may lawfully possess them in 45 States. People v. Yanna, 297 Mich. App. 137, 144, 824 N. W. 2d 241, 245 (2012) (holding Michigan stun gun ban unconstitutional); see Volokh, Nonlethal Self-Defense, (Almost Entirely) Nonlethal Weapons, and the Rights To Keep and Bear Arms and Defend Life, 62 Stan. L. Rev. 199, 244 (2009) (citing stun gun bans in seven States); Wis. Stat. §941.295 (Supp. 2015) (amended Wisconsin law permitting stun gun possession); see also Brief in Opposi tion 11 (acknowledging that approximately 200,000 civil ians owned stun guns as of 2009). 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. III The lower courts ill treatment of Heller cannot stand. The reasoning of the Massachusetts court poses a grave threat to the fundamental right of self-defense. The Su preme Judicial Court suggested that Caetano could have simply gotten a firearm to defend herself. 470 Mass., at 783, 26 N. E. 3d, at 695. But the right to bear other weap ons is no answer to a ban on the possession of protected arms. Heller, 554 U. S., at 629. Moreover, a weapon is an effective means of self-defense only if one is prepared to use it, and it is presumptuous to tell Caetano she should have been ready to shoot the father of her two young children if she wanted to protect herself. Courts should 10 CAETANO v. MASSACHUSETTS ALITO, J., concurring in judgment not be in the business of demanding that citizens use more force for self-defense than they are comfortable wielding.6 Countless people may have reservations about using deadly force, whether for moral, religious, or emotional reasonsor simply out of fear of killing the wrong person. See Brief for Arming Women Against Rape & Endanger ment as Amicus Curiae 45. Self-defense, however, is a basic right. McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767. I am not pre pared to say that a State may force an individual to choose between exercising that right and following her con science, at least where both can be accommodated by a weapon already in widespread use across the Nation. * * * A States most basic responsibility is to keep its people safe. 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. 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 flimsi est of grounds. This Courts grudging per curiam now sends the case back to that same court. And the conse quences for Caetano may prove more tragic still, as her conviction likely bars her from ever bearing arms for self- defense. See Pet. for Cert. 14. 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. 6 The court below also noted that Massachusetts no longer requires a license to possess mace or pepper spray. 470 Mass., at 783, 26 N. E. 3d, at 695. But the law was changed in 2014, after Caetano was convicted. A spray can also be foiled by a stiff breeze, while a stun gun cannot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spec5 Posted March 21, 2016 at 06:18 PM Share Posted March 21, 2016 at 06:18 PM The thread title is very deceiving. The Supreme Court sent it back to Massachusetts Judicial Court and it didn't reverse it. " The challenge, filed by a woman who was arrested for carrying the weapon in her purse for protection, now gets new life. But rather than hearing the case themselves and potentially striking down the ban, the justices sent it back to the state's Supreme Judicial Court. They reasoned that their own landmark decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago were meant to protect even firearms "that were not in existence at the time of the founding." However, they stopped short of a blanket endorsement of stun guns." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweeper13 Posted March 21, 2016 at 09:25 PM Author Share Posted March 21, 2016 at 09:25 PM If Mauser feels the thread title is " very deceiving" to the members, Im sure he will correct it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Posted March 21, 2016 at 11:51 PM Share Posted March 21, 2016 at 11:51 PM The thread title is very deceiving. The Supreme Court sent it back to Massachusetts Judicial Court and it didn't reverse it. " The challenge, filed by a woman who was arrested for carrying the weapon in her purse for protection, now gets new life. But rather than hearing the case themselves and potentially striking down the ban, the justices sent it back to the state's Supreme Judicial Court. They reasoned that their own landmark decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago were meant to protect even firearms "that were not in existence at the time of the founding." However, they stopped short of a blanket endorsement of stun guns." From the final paragraph of the SCOTUS order: Consequently, the petition for a writ ofcertiorari and the motion for leave to proceed in formapauperis are granted. The judgment of the SupremeJudicial Court of Massachusetts is vacated, and the case isremanded for further proceedings not inconsistent withthis opinion. What they did (in a unanimous ruling!) was to tell the SJC of Massachusetts that they screwed up, this is why you screwed up, your previous ruling is VACATED, now go and fix your mess and apply the law according to our interpretation. This was a SPANKING by SCOTUS. The Mass. SJC wouldn't dare do anything but strike the law down after this. They screwed it up so bad that SCOTUS didn't even bother with a hearing or oral arguments, they just reversed it without listening to any excuses. I think this will have implications for a lot of cases in the pipeline right now. I think that combining this ruling with Moore/Shepard, we should be able to get rid of the portion of UUW that prohibits carrying stun guns and tasers outside the home. And that's just for beginners. -- Frank Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauserme Posted March 22, 2016 at 12:03 AM Share Posted March 22, 2016 at 12:03 AM ... I think this will have implications for a lot of cases ... I think it has a lot of potential too and, as you noted, it was unanimous to boot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sigma Posted March 22, 2016 at 12:17 AM Share Posted March 22, 2016 at 12:17 AM If Mauser feels the thread title is " very deceiving" to the members, Im sure he will correct it.Mauser is a guy?All these years... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackbeard Posted March 22, 2016 at 12:29 AM Share Posted March 22, 2016 at 12:29 AM Any chance this gets stun guns legal to carry in Illinois? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamma Posted March 22, 2016 at 12:54 AM Share Posted March 22, 2016 at 12:54 AM From the final paragraph of the SCOTUS order: Consequently, the petition for a writ ofcertiorari and the motion for leave to proceed in formapauperis are granted. The judgment of the SupremeJudicial Court of Massachusetts is vacated, and the case isremanded for further proceedings not inconsistent withthis opinion. What they did (in a unanimous ruling!) was to tell the SJC of Massachusetts that they screwed up, this is why you screwed up, your previous ruling is VACATED, now go and fix your mess and apply the law according to our interpretation. This was a SPANKING by SCOTUS. The Mass. SJC wouldn't dare do anything but strike the law down after this. They screwed it up so bad that SCOTUS didn't even bother with a hearing or oral arguments, they just reversed it without listening to any excuses. I think this will have implications for a lot of cases in the pipeline right now. I think that combining this ruling with Moore/Shepard, we should be able to get rid of the portion of UUW that prohibits carrying stun guns and tasers outside the home. And that's just for beginners. -- Frank Agreed. In legal terms, the MA courts just got spanked and sent to go clean up their room, by both parents. I've believed for years that stun guns/tasers are "arms" and should have constitutional protection, and that at a practical level, it's ridiculous to allow people to carry a firearm while continuing to ban nonlethal or lesslethal options. It might be a battle best waged legislatively, but there is certainly an opportunity for a legal challenge to the IL bans. This decision taken together with Moore/Shepard should be a slam dunk. The question is will Illinois create yet another rube goldberg apparatus of a stun gun carry permit bureacracy or just let it go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jlowrie Posted March 22, 2016 at 01:30 AM Share Posted March 22, 2016 at 01:30 AM ...I think this will have implications for a lot of cases ...I think it has a lot of potential too and, as you noted, it was unanimous to boot. This case has lot of potential. With the unanimous decision, it leaves me wondering about the end game from Breyer & Ginsberg. They both opposed Heller, and Heller (as well as McDonald v Chicago), were prominently mentioned in the decision. It all leaves me wondering where I left my tinfoil hat... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stm Posted March 22, 2016 at 01:57 AM Share Posted March 22, 2016 at 01:57 AM ... I think this will have implications for a lot of cases ... I think it has a lot of potential too and, as you noted, it was unanimous to boot. This case has lot of potential. With the unanimous decision, it leaves me wondering about the end game from Breyer & Ginsberg. They both opposed Heller, and Heller (as well as McDonald v Chicago), were prominently mentioned in the decision. It all leaves me wondering where I left my tinfoil hat... I think the anti-gun members of SCOTUS voted for this because they want to affirm their own supremacy. It is more important to them that SCOTUS precedent be followed than the politics of the issues involved. Also, I can't help but wonder if this was done in tribute of their recently departed peer. My impression is that while they didn't agree with him philosophically, they liked and respected Scalia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chislinger Posted March 22, 2016 at 03:05 AM Share Posted March 22, 2016 at 03:05 AM Maybe the plaintiff being a woman helped bring the liberal justices to our side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoadyRunner Posted March 22, 2016 at 03:11 AM Share Posted March 22, 2016 at 03:11 AM This is the first 2A 'reverse and remand' I've seen (havn't looked that hard). Sweet! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoadyRunner Posted March 22, 2016 at 03:18 AM Share Posted March 22, 2016 at 03:18 AM Any chance this gets stun guns legal to carry in Illinois? After a unanimous SCOTUS opinion.... You would think so....eventually.... Illinois has to amend its prohibition - but it may take a lawsuit to do so. Only question is if the State is going to require a CCL to carry one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamma Posted March 22, 2016 at 03:50 AM Share Posted March 22, 2016 at 03:50 AM This is the first 2A 'reverse and remand' I've seen (havn't looked that hard). Sweet!I believe it's the first 2A decision from SCOTUS since McDonald. The more I think about it, about the rationale that was used to justify the MA ban and how that rationale was summarily and forcefully rejected by SCOTUS, the more optimistic I become. It's the exact same language in Heller than all the AW ban cases and others have been attached to. MA may have just screwed the gun control cause with this overreach that pushed SCOTUS into action. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
borgranta Posted March 22, 2016 at 04:52 AM Share Posted March 22, 2016 at 04:52 AM Maybe the plaintiff being a woman helped bring the liberal justices to our side.The failure of the state to enforce their own protection orders and their chosing to prosecute the abused woman for defending herself when she chose the least lethal weapon that she could find was the perfect storm of events that caused bipartisan support among all the justices to vacate the judgement of the lower court for being unconstitutional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
borgranta Posted March 22, 2016 at 04:57 AM Share Posted March 22, 2016 at 04:57 AM Using the logic of the lower court would mean that Massachusetts could ban cell phones computers tv radio phones and cars since none existed in the 1700s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauserme Posted March 22, 2016 at 10:44 AM Share Posted March 22, 2016 at 10:44 AM This is the first 2A 'reverse and remand' I've seen (havn't looked that hard). Sweet!I believe it's the first 2A decision from SCOTUS since McDonald. The more I think about it, about the rationale that was used to justify the MA ban and how that rationale was summarily and forcefully rejected by SCOTUS, the more optimistic I become. It's the exact same language in Heller than all the AW ban cases and others have been attached to. MA may have just screwed the gun control cause with this overreach that pushed SCOTUS into action. And not just AW's. They explain their meaning in Heller that "The Court has held that the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, ..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NakPPI Posted March 22, 2016 at 11:17 AM Share Posted March 22, 2016 at 11:17 AM It means Illinois' prohibition is likely unconstitutional also, but someone needs to file a law suit to make it so. Based on the supreme Court ruling it would be a pretty easy case... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davey Posted March 22, 2016 at 11:55 AM Share Posted March 22, 2016 at 11:55 AM It means Illinois' prohibition is likely unconstitutional also, but someone needs to file a law suit to make it so. Based on the supreme Court ruling it would be a pretty easy case...Or it'll pass quietly in a bill, kinda like how we got SBRs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoadyRunner Posted March 22, 2016 at 12:21 PM Share Posted March 22, 2016 at 12:21 PM The more I think about it, about the rationale that was used to justify the MA ban and how that rationale was summarily and forcefully rejected by SCOTUS, the more optimistic I become. It's the exact same language in Heller than all the AW ban cases and others have been attached to. MA may have just screwed the gun control cause with this overreach that pushed SCOTUS into action. There are still the lower courts opinions that ARs are in some way 'unusual' or 'especially dangerous' to get kicked down.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrTriple Posted March 22, 2016 at 01:22 PM Share Posted March 22, 2016 at 01:22 PM It means Illinois' prohibition is likely unconstitutional also, but someone needs to file a law suit to make it so. Based on the supreme Court ruling it would be a pretty easy case...The same is true for certain aspects of Illinois's firearms laws. Caetano only became a SCOTUS case because a victim was herself victimized by a system determined to punish her for exercising her rights. You could, perhaps with a bit more difficulty, argue the same with our excessive permit fees, or the prohibition on transit carry. We just need a good plaintiff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnyb82 Posted March 22, 2016 at 02:37 PM Share Posted March 22, 2016 at 02:37 PM This is the first 2A 'reverse and remand' I've seen (havn't looked that hard). Sweet! I believe it's the first 2A decision from SCOTUS since McDonald. The more I think about it, about the rationale that was used to justify the MA ban and how that rationale was summarily and forcefully rejected by SCOTUS, the more optimistic I become. It's the exact same language in Heller than all the AW ban cases and others have been attached to. MA may have just screwed the gun control cause with this overreach that pushed SCOTUS into action. It's the first case in which SCOTUS didn't hear the case on its merits before deciding on it. First per curiam, analogous to a GVR order but since there's no directly controlling precedent, but tangential to Heller so that necessitated the per curiam opinion. Here's one paragraph in Alito's concurrence that has a ton of sharp teeth. "The Supreme Judicial Courtâs holding that stun guns may be banned as 'dangerous and unusual weapons' fares no better. As the per curiam opinion recognizes, this is a conjunctive test: A weapon may not be banned unless it is both dangerous and unusual. Because the Court rejects the lower courtâs conclusion that stun guns are 'unusual,' it does not need to consider the lower courtâs conclusion that they are also 'dangerous.' See ante, at 1â2. But make no mistakeâthe decision below gravely erred on both grounds." Justice Alito makes it crystal clear that the test for determining if a weapon is protected under the Second Amendment is if the weapon is both dangerous AND unusual. Not dangerous, not unusual, but dangerous AND unusual. Commonly possessed weapons cannot be dangerous and unusual because "common" is an antonym for unusual. But wait, there's more. "Instead, the court seized on language, originating in United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 (1939), that 'the sorts of weapons protected were those "in common use at the time." 470 Mass., at 778, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692 (quoting Heller, supra, at 627, in turn quoting Miller, supra, at 179). That quotation does not mean, as the court below thought, that only weapons popular in 1789 are covered by the Second Amendment. It simply reflects the reality that the founding-era militia consisted of citizens 'who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty,' Heller, 554 U. S., at 627, and that the Second Amendment accordingly guarantees the right to carry weapons 'typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes,' id., at 625." "Electronic stun guns are no more exempt from the Second Amendmentâs protections, simply because they were unknown to the First Congress, than electronic communications are exempt from the First Amendment, or electronic imaging devices are exempt from the Fourth Amendment." That about spells out how to analyze whether a particular firearm or weapon is protected. Obama and Clinton should be nervous about this one. Sent from my VK700 using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lockman Posted March 22, 2016 at 04:59 PM Share Posted March 22, 2016 at 04:59 PM The state supreme court was grasping at straws. By allowing this case to go forward they have now bound the trial court to a whole new set of rules and provided a clear path into the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hazborgufen Posted March 22, 2016 at 08:03 PM Share Posted March 22, 2016 at 08:03 PM Any hope that this: "The Court has held that the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms" can help us make machine guns legal in Illinois or open up the registry? After all, a machine gun most definitely qualifies as a "bearable arm." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamma Posted March 22, 2016 at 08:25 PM Share Posted March 22, 2016 at 08:25 PM Any hope that this: "The Court has held that the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms" can help us make machine guns legal in Illinois or open up the registry? After all, a machine gun most definitely qualifies as a "bearable arm."There are lawsuits regarding MGs currently ongoing in two different federal districts addressing those points. see:http://www.sdslaw.us/#!nfa-cases/c1xu9https://hellerfoundation.org/hvh/http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1681489_NFA_cases__Hollis_and_Watson_v__Lynch___new_5th_circuit_filing_3_8_16_p_187.html Some of the exact language from the Caetano decision is on point to the issues in question in these suits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stm Posted March 22, 2016 at 09:17 PM Share Posted March 22, 2016 at 09:17 PM Any hope that this: "The Court has held that the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms" can help us make machine guns legal in Illinois or open up the registry? After all, a machine gun most definitely qualifies as a "bearable arm." I was thinking about automatic knives, also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.