Jump to content


Photo

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


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
51 replies to this topic

#1 Sweeper13

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 988 posts
  • Joined: 13-October 12

Posted 21 March 2016 - 10:37 AM

http://www.usatoday....dment/76313848/

Edited by mauserme, 21 March 2016 - 12:24 PM.
Added Case Name to Title


#2 Frank

    "Frank can Glock"

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 2,511 posts
  • Joined: 01-April 09

Posted 21 March 2016 - 11:00 AM

SWEEEET!!


NRA Life Member - NRA Basic Pistol Instructor - NRA PPIH Instructor - NRA PPOH Instructor - USPSA Range Officer - IL Firearms Concealed Carry Instructor - ITWT Club Member #438

"The Supreme Court has decided that the amendment confers a right to bear arms for self-defense, which is as important outside the home as inside." -Moore v. Madigan, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, December 11, 2012


#3 Glock23

    I am no one.

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,975 posts
  • Joined: 20-February 13

Posted 21 March 2016 - 11:05 AM

Sweeter if they had made an actual decision, rather than simply telling the state supreme court to basically take another look and try again...

** Illinois Carry - Supporting Member

** National Association for Gun Rights - Frontline Defender

** Illinois State Rifle Association - 3 year Member

** National Rifle Association - Patron Life Member

 


#4 mauserme

    Eliminating the element of surprise one bill at a time.

  • Admin
  • 18,972 posts
  • Joined: 20-February 09

Posted 21 March 2016 - 11:12 AM


Some interesting guidance. Did my best to keep it formatted correctly.


http://www.supremeco...116zor_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, 2016

PER 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 Curiam

unusual 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 ILGA House Audio/Video..........Link to ILGA Senate Audio/Video ..........Advanced Digital Media Link ..........Blue Room Stream Link

Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice. (Ephesians 4:31)

 

On 5/25/2017, Superintendent Eddie Johnson predicted a 50% reduction is Chicago violence within 3 years of SB1722 becoming law.  The bill was signed into law on 6/23/2017. The clock is now ticking.


#5 mauserme

    Eliminating the element of surprise one bill at a time.

  • Admin
  • 18,972 posts
  • Joined: 20-February 09

Posted 21 March 2016 - 11:17 AM

And the concurrence.

There was no dissent.


http://www.supremeco...116zor_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...ombatmunitions/
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 ILGA House Audio/Video..........Link to ILGA Senate Audio/Video ..........Advanced Digital Media Link ..........Blue Room Stream Link

Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice. (Ephesians 4:31)

 

On 5/25/2017, Superintendent Eddie Johnson predicted a 50% reduction is Chicago violence within 3 years of SB1722 becoming law.  The bill was signed into law on 6/23/2017. The clock is now ticking.


#6 spec5

    Nuclear Member

  • Members
  • 4,519 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 09

Posted 21 March 2016 - 12:18 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."

Edited by spec5, 21 March 2016 - 12:23 PM.

NRA Member Life Member
ISRA Member
Illinois Carry
Pershing Nuclear Missile 56th Field Artillery Brigade Veteran
1/41 Field Artillary Germany

#7 Sweeper13

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 988 posts
  • Joined: 13-October 12

Posted 21 March 2016 - 03:25 PM

 If Mauser feels the thread title is " very deceiving"  to the members, Im sure he will correct it.



#8 Frank

    "Frank can Glock"

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 2,511 posts
  • Joined: 01-April 09

Posted 21 March 2016 - 05:51 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 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.

 

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


NRA Life Member - NRA Basic Pistol Instructor - NRA PPIH Instructor - NRA PPOH Instructor - USPSA Range Officer - IL Firearms Concealed Carry Instructor - ITWT Club Member #438

"The Supreme Court has decided that the amendment confers a right to bear arms for self-defense, which is as important outside the home as inside." -Moore v. Madigan, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, December 11, 2012


#9 mauserme

    Eliminating the element of surprise one bill at a time.

  • Admin
  • 18,972 posts
  • Joined: 20-February 09

Posted 21 March 2016 - 06:03 PM

...
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 ILGA House Audio/Video..........Link to ILGA Senate Audio/Video ..........Advanced Digital Media Link ..........Blue Room Stream Link

Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice. (Ephesians 4:31)

 

On 5/25/2017, Superintendent Eddie Johnson predicted a 50% reduction is Chicago violence within 3 years of SB1722 becoming law.  The bill was signed into law on 6/23/2017. The clock is now ticking.


#10 Sigma

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,986 posts
  • Joined: 13-August 09

Posted 21 March 2016 - 06:17 PM

 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...


Exodus 22:2-3
If the thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed.

Gun control is not about guns, it's about control. Once they have all the guns, they'll also have complete control.-Abolt

Guns kill people just like beds get girls pregnant.

#11 Blackbeard

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,351 posts
  • Joined: 29-December 09

Posted 21 March 2016 - 06:29 PM

Any chance this gets stun guns legal to carry in Illinois?


Blackbeard is not an attorney.  All comments posted are the views of Blackbeard alone and do not necessarily represent those of Illinois Carry™ or of any sane person.  For the love of God, please ignore any advice he has given.


#12 Gamma

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,414 posts
  • Joined: 29-December 13

Posted 21 March 2016 - 06:54 PM

 


 

From the final paragraph of the SCOTUS order:

 

 

 

 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.

 

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.


Illinois' FCCA is a prime example of the maxim that sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.

#13 jlowrie

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,071 posts
  • Joined: 26-February 12

Posted 21 March 2016 - 07:30 PM

 

...
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...  :tinfoilhat:


The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it. --Richard Henry Lee, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788

#14 stm

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,965 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 11

Posted 21 March 2016 - 07:57 PM


 

...
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...  :tinfoilhat:


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.

Edited by stm, 21 March 2016 - 07:58 PM.

yea everyone makes fun of the redneck till the zombies show up. . .


#15 chislinger

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,942 posts
  • Joined: 21-November 13

Posted 21 March 2016 - 09:05 PM

Maybe the plaintiff being a woman helped bring the liberal justices to our side.
"I'm not worried about following the U.S. Constitution." - Washington County, Alabama Judge Nick Williams

#16 RoadyRunner

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,875 posts
  • Joined: 03-October 12

Posted 21 March 2016 - 09:11 PM

This is the first 2A 'reverse and remand' I've seen (havn't looked that hard). Sweet!

IC Supporting member
NRA life member
NRA certified Basic Pistol Instructor

Illinois Certified Concealed Carry Instructor

 


#17 RoadyRunner

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,875 posts
  • Joined: 03-October 12

Posted 21 March 2016 - 09:18 PM

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.

IC Supporting member
NRA life member
NRA certified Basic Pistol Instructor

Illinois Certified Concealed Carry Instructor

 


#18 Gamma

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,414 posts
  • Joined: 29-December 13

Posted 21 March 2016 - 09:50 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.


Illinois' FCCA is a prime example of the maxim that sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.

#19 borgranta

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,730 posts
  • Joined: 29-June 12

Posted 21 March 2016 - 10:52 PM

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.
The following referral code will grant provide a new User of Uber a free ride up to $15
donaldd4557ui

#20 borgranta

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,730 posts
  • Joined: 29-June 12

Posted 21 March 2016 - 10:57 PM

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.
The following referral code will grant provide a new User of Uber a free ride up to $15
donaldd4557ui

#21 mauserme

    Eliminating the element of surprise one bill at a time.

  • Admin
  • 18,972 posts
  • Joined: 20-February 09

Posted 22 March 2016 - 04:44 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 ILGA House Audio/Video..........Link to ILGA Senate Audio/Video ..........Advanced Digital Media Link ..........Blue Room Stream Link

Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice. (Ephesians 4:31)

 

On 5/25/2017, Superintendent Eddie Johnson predicted a 50% reduction is Chicago violence within 3 years of SB1722 becoming law.  The bill was signed into law on 6/23/2017. The clock is now ticking.


#22 NakPPI

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,624 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 11

Posted 22 March 2016 - 05:17 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...
Stung by the result of McDonald v. City of Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 3020 (2010), the City quickly enacted an ordinance that was too clever by half. Recognizing that a complete gun ban would no longer survive Supreme Court review, the City required all gun owners to obtain training that included one hour of live‐range instruction, and then banned all live ranges within City limits. This was not so much a nod to the importance of live‐range training as it was a thumbing of the municipal nose at the Supreme Court.

#23 Davey

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,216 posts
  • Joined: 02-November 10

Posted 22 March 2016 - 05:55 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.

#24 RoadyRunner

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,875 posts
  • Joined: 03-October 12

Posted 22 March 2016 - 06:21 AM

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....

Edited by RoadyRunner, 22 March 2016 - 06:23 AM.

IC Supporting member
NRA life member
NRA certified Basic Pistol Instructor

Illinois Certified Concealed Carry Instructor

 


#25 MrTriple

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,889 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 13

Posted 22 March 2016 - 07:22 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...


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.
"The point of [so-called "assault weapon" bans]...is not to ban firearms that are dangerous, it's to ban firearms that gun owners want to own because the people making the laws don't like gun owners. If we want to buy non-semiauto AR-style rifles, they'll ban those too, and for the same reason."

-Hapless

#26 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,540 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 22 March 2016 - 08:37 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.


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

Edited by skinnyb82, 22 March 2016 - 08:36 AM.

NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#27 lockman

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,725 posts
  • Joined: 07-July 06

Posted 22 March 2016 - 10:59 AM

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.


"We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately."
-- Benjamin Franklin, 1776

Life Member NRA, ISRA,  CCRKBA, GOA, & SAF


#28 Hazborgufen

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 997 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 13

Posted 22 March 2016 - 02:03 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."


Edited by Hazborgufen, 22 March 2016 - 02:03 PM.


#29 Gamma

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,414 posts
  • Joined: 29-December 13

Posted 22 March 2016 - 02:25 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/c1xu9

https://hellerfoundation.org/hvh/

http://www.ar15.com/...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.


Edited by Gamma, 22 March 2016 - 02:28 PM.

Illinois' FCCA is a prime example of the maxim that sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.

#30 stm

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,965 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 11

Posted 22 March 2016 - 03:17 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.

yea everyone makes fun of the redneck till the zombies show up. . .