Jump to content

(CAETANO v. MASSACHUSETTS) Supreme Court reverses Massachusetts' stun gun ban (link)


Sweeper13

Recommended Posts

Given SCOTUS' position on this case, wouldn't it have been more efficient if they had just agreed to hear the case and make their own ruling? As it is, assuming the state supreme court does as they've implied and reverses their own decision, all they've done is fixed Massachusettes.

 

What about the rest of the states which have the same ban? Why make it a piece meal effort?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given SCOTUS' position on this case, wouldn't it have been more efficient if they had just agreed to hear the case and make their own ruling? As it is, assuming the state supreme court does as they've implied and reverses their own decision, all they've done is fixed Massachusettes.

 

What about the rest of the states which have the same ban? Why make it a piece meal effort?

Its a decision with as much weight as any other. What it means is that the decision was so obvious that no oral argument or additional input was necessary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They didn't believe that they needed to hear arguments on the merits, which explains the sheer amount of relists before disposition. Odd how this was disposed of using a per curiam and Friedman wasn't even granted cert since both cases are/were as clear-cut as can be and CA7's reasoning in Friedman is more flawed than the MA court's reasoning in Caetano. At least the MA court didn't use how one's neighbor might feel about a particular subset of arms as justification for affirming the ban.

 

Sent from my VK700 using Tapatalk

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can this opinion be cited in the Illinois State Court system version of Friedman, which I think is Wilson?

In short, yes. But it's an unsigned opinion. We don't know who authored it. It would be extremely persuasive, however.

 

@stockboyy

The test is not "dangerous or unusual." It is "dangerous and unusual." Cannot be dangerous (all weapons are dangerous) and usual (common use). Must be both dangerous and unusual. It's the exact same reasoning used by the panel in Kolbe v. Hogan. The Plaintiffs will undoubtedly cite this case in their appellate brief before en banc arguments. The majority even stated that Judge King stopped his analysis when he determined the firearms in question are dangerous, as he would have ignored the conjunction, the "and." Majority also cited many cases in which the "dangerous and (or) unusual" test was applied, ignoring the "and," instead finding that the firearms (weapons) in question are dangerous, so the analysis stops right there.

 

Sent from my VS986 using Tapatalk

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great blurb from by a 'Guest blogger' via SCOTUSblog on this:

Caetano v. Massachusetts, 14-10078, is a huge winner after nine relists. Taking nine relists to get summary vacatur is kind of low energy. I like cases that get summary vacatur after one relist, but it worked out in the end. The Court issued a per curiam opinion vacating the decision of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, saying it messed up when it said the Second Amendment doesn’t protect the use of stun guns. The Supreme Court’s opinion was like five paragraphs long, and most of it boiled down to the idea that the Second Amendment isn’t limited to the kinds of weapons that Aaron Burr and that guy Hamilton who is so hot right now dueled with. Nobody dissented on this one. Nobody! That’s a strong opinion. And just like I said all along, Justices Alito and Thomas wrote to explain how totally wrong the Massachusetts court was. Some people are saying I predicted they’d dissent from the denial of cert., but trust me, that opinion started out as a dissent from denial and it was just so right that everybody went along with it. Nobody supports and backs up the Second Amendment like I do.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/03/the-greatest-relist-watch-ever/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sad thing is that said "guest blogger" would be considered "informed" (the bar is low.....very very low). "Dude like they totally...." OK go back to the dorm (actually it's probably some 40 something year old who rakes in six figures easy). Also sounds like a Trump supporter (the "low energy" comment).

 

Sent from my VS986 using Tapatalk

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Can this opinion be cited in the Illinois State Court system version of Friedman, which I think is Wilson?

In short, yes. But it's an unsigned opinion. We don't know who authored it. It would be extremely persuasive, however.

 

@stockboyy

The test is not "dangerous or unusual." It is "dangerous and unusual." Cannot be dangerous (all weapons are dangerous) and usual (common use). Must be both dangerous and unusual. It's the exact same reasoning used by the panel in Kolbe v. Hogan. The Plaintiffs will undoubtedly cite this case in their appellate brief before en banc arguments. The majority even stated that Judge King stopped his analysis when he determined the firearms in question are dangerous, as he would have ignored the conjunction, the "and." Majority also cited many cases in which the "dangerous and (or) unusual" test was applied, ignoring the "and," instead finding that the firearms (weapons) in question are dangerous, so the analysis stops right there.

 

Sent from my VS986 using Tapatalk

 

I was told the per curiam portion is indeed controlling, the concurrence by Alito is persuasive authority.

 

Definitely looking forward to Kolbe oral arguments. They (MD) would seem to be in a very, very small box. Would have been even smaller had SCOTUS not booted Friedman just recently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's rather murky as to whether the per curiam is precedential as it only vacates the conviction. It doesn't foreclose on any criminal charges against the petitioner (see Alito's concurrence). Ms. Caetano could very well face criminal charges relating to possession of a stun gun. Likely not a possession charge but something tangential.

 

Sent from my VK700 using Tapatalk

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

Massachusetts dropped all charges against Caetano in a manner showing a formal adjudication of not guilty and sealed the record. She has been vindicated. I guess easier to do this than to retry her and risk SCOTUS wiping the stun gun ban entirely.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/07/07/charges-dropped-in-caetano-v-massachusetts-second-amendment-stun-gun-case/

 

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So they just dropped the charges against her, and left the unconstitutional law in place? And people wonder why the legal system is broken.

 

No. The Washington Post article skinnyb82 linked has a good explanation.

 

SCOTUS didn't find the law unconstitutional. According to the article, they didn't address the constitutionality of the statute. They found the MA court's legal reasoning went against SCOTUS precedent, and sent the case back for the MA court and prosecution to decide if they wanted to give it another shot.

 

The charges weren't dropped; a verdict of not guilty was entered by agreement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The gist of it is that the prosecutor didn't wanna end up being the reason for a court to hold the MA ban on stun guns to be unconstitutional so they vindicated her in order to protect their own posteriors. Should not have used the phrase "charges dropped."

 

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The gist of it is that the prosecutor didn't wanna end up being the reason for a court to hold the MA ban on stun guns to be unconstitutional so they vindicated her in order to protect their own posteriors. Should not have used the phrase "charges dropped."

 

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

So is the law unconstitutional or is it in a weird limbo land where the prosecutors have decided not to prosecute people caught with a stun gun?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

It's basically being treated like the criminal charges were never filed. She has been exonerated. So I doubt they will continue arresting people for stun device carriage. At least those who pose no danger to themselves or others. Otherwise this issue will go back up the food chain.

 

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would appear that there will be a stun gun challenge filed against New Orlean's ban. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/07/22/want-a-stun-gun-in-new-orleans/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These bans have been dropping like flies since Michigan's ban was struck down in Ybarra (think that's the defendant's name). I fully expect it to continue. It's ludicrous that I can lawfully carry a friggin hand cannon but no stun device of any kind. Talked to too many people who don't feel comfortable carrying a pistol but would carry a stun device (women).

 

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Talked to too many people who don't feel comfortable carrying a pistol but would carry a stun device (women).I've talked to many who have no idea at all that stun guns are regulated (ie, illegal to carry). In years past I saw a couple of prosecutions.

Ignorance of the law is amazing. I have actually landed myself smack dab in the middle of an argument over DUIs. Specifically, some ignorant....eh, yeah, she tried arguing one can only get a DUI for alcohol. I laughed and told her to look at the law. She refused, continued to argue with me. Most people didn't even know carriage of firearms outside the home was completely banned until CA7 ruled in Moore.

 

Judge Myerscough denied the state's motion to dismiss as moot in Moore because the Plaintiffs had asked the court to enjoin the state from enforcing the entire AUUW/UUW with regard to carriage of both firearms and stun devices. She held that Plaintiffs had not been granted relief they demanded. But I don't think that Sigale litigated that on remand. The remand of Moore coupled with Caetano, state decisions such as Ybarra, would provide a nice launch point for a challenge to the ban on carriage of stun devices.

 

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...