Hey, there! Log in / Register

US Supreme Court to our SJC: If you want to uphold ban on stun guns, you'll have to come up with better reasons

At Blue Mass Group, David explains today's ruling by the US Supreme Court in the Caetano case, in which the nation's highest court told our highest court its ruling upholding a state ban on stun guns because they weren't around in the 18th century was kind of dumb.

The rulings both came in the case of a woman with a stun gun in her purse, which police discovered when they arrested her for shoplifting in Ashland.

The nation's highest court did not overturn the Massachusetts ban, David writes - it just told the SJC to put its thinking caps back on and provide a more solid legal grounding for its arguments.

[T]he Supreme Court did not just create a nationwide right to possess stun guns. What it did do is tell the SJC that just because stun guns weren’t around in 1789 doesn’t mean they’re not protected by the 2nd Amendment. They might be; then again, they might not. The SJC will have to reconsider the case, hopefully with a bit more attention to what Heller and McDonald actually say, and then we will see.

Free tagging: 


Ad:


Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!

Comments

You left out a lot of detail in this 8-0 ruling:

The defendant wasn't arrested for shoplifting. She was a suspect which consented to a search to clear herself and when the police searched her the stun gun was discovered.

The woman was homeless and a victim of domestic violence with a restraining order against her ex-husband which had previously approached and threatened to kill her in public.

A State’s 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 flimsiest
of grounds. This Court’s grudging per curiam now
sends the case back to that same court. And the consequences
for Caetano may prove more tragic still, as her
conviction likely bars her from ever bearing arms for selfdefense.
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.

The SJC went through some serious gymnastics to stick it to this woman and the Supreme Court was none too pleased about a victim being victimized again by the system which is supposed to protect her.

up
Voting closed 0

Big time

up
Voting closed 0

First decide, then deliberate.

With countless decisions being overturned by the black robes in Washington, you'd think they would actually look at precedent and whatnot before voting up or down. But then again, I'm not a lawyer, so what do I know?

up
Voting closed 0

The lower court’s ill treatment of Heller cannot stand.
The reasoning of the Massachusetts court poses a grave
threat to the fundamental right of self-defense. The Supreme
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 weapons
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
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
reasons—or simply out of fear of killing the wrong person.
See Brief for Arming Women Against Rape & Endangerment
as Amicus Curiae 4–5. “Self-defense,” however, “is a
basic right.” McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767. I am not prepared
to say that a State may force an individual to choose
between exercising that right and following her conscience,
at least where both can be accommodated by a
weapon already in widespread use across the Nation.

Pretty damning

up
Voting closed 0

Big time, again

up
Voting closed 0

The founding fathers are rolling over in their graves, they would be outraged that the stun guns they loved and cherished are being outlawed. Whats next, the marijuana so many at the time grew made illegal?

up
Voting closed 0

Muskets were the state of the art at the time of the drafting of the Bill of Rights. clearly she could have been carrying a large bore black powder musket instead and been within her rights.

Seriously though, this is a good example to all of how throwback the self defense laws in MA and in Boston in particular are. Tasers, mace may save your life. Cops in ten minutes won't. We need sensible laws, not knee jerk responses.

up
Voting closed 0

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

whoa SCOTUS!

up
Voting closed 0

Key comments from
http://legalinsurrection.com/2016/03/supreme-court-2nd-amendment-applies... :

"Alito and Thomas’ concurrence praised Caetano for asserting her rights to protect herself.

'Caetano’s encounter with her violent ex-boyfriend illustrates the connection between those fundamental rights: By arming herself, Caetano was able to protect against a physical threat that restraining orders had proved useless to prevent. 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.'

The concurrence was sharp in its criticism of the Massachusetts court, saying that its decision “does a grave disservice to vulnerable individuals like Caetano who must defend themselves because the State will not.” "

up
Voting closed 0

Boston, Cambridge, Somerville, Brookline, Newton, Arlington, etc.?

And where can I buy pepper spray? The strange MA law change means still no one will ship it into MA, even though it's now legal to carry here without a permit, but I don't see any gun stores in the area.

It's like someone really doesn't want people to have pepper spray here, even after lifting the firearms ID requirement, supposedly to make it easier for women to be able to carry pepper spray.

If this is about not wanting muggers to have pepper spray, I have bad news for you: the muggers already have knives and often guns.

up
Voting closed 0

Bass Pro Shops and Cabelas both sell chemical sprays. Try out the big box stores, too. I'm pretty sure Walmart carries some in their outdoors section.

up
Voting closed 0

Tazers are still totes illegal in MA.

Kenmore Army/Navy in downtown Boston sells pepper spray as did the new City Target until the AG supposedly sent them a threatening letter.

Otherwise the only transit accessible options for you are:
Take the Red Line to Quincy Center and then a bus to the Sportmans Den in Quincy
Take Orange Line to Wellington and a bus to Four Seasons in Woburn
Take the Orange Line to Sullivan Station and a bus to Collectors Gallery in Stoneham
Take the Red Line to Harvard and a bus to Lee Sports/Law Enforcement Equipment in Waltham
Take a bus from Forest Hills or the commuter rail to Dicks Sporting Goods at Legacy Place in Dedham
Take the commuter rail from South Station to Natick Center for B&K Sales, GFA Tech, or the Natick Outdoor Store.

And remember that the AG "Doesn't encourage self help" so expect to be put through the wringer in a bad situation.

up
Voting closed 0

Four Seasons in Woburn carries a few different kind. There is also the Sportsman's Den in Quincy, accessible by bus I believe. Some places will ship OC spray to MA - I've had good luck on Amazon and eBay.

up
Voting closed 0

I like the author's (david @ bluemassgroup) very fair explanation. I find it to be really telling that this went 6 to 0 even without Justices Thomas, Alito, & Scalia, the most conservative ones, although I admit I don't have any idea what statement Thomas and Alito were making by not signing onto the main opinion. I can't help but see it as being a unanimous reproach of Massachusetts' ultra liberalism. And another thing: knowing the current members of the court show a lot of flexibility in their mindsets, they can hardly be counted upon to rule according to preconceived notions of their liberal/conservative slants, and so why is there always lately such a drag down fight to appoint somebody who will probably not turn out to rule how you wanted him to anyway ?

up
Voting closed 0