• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

Article: Stun-Gun Rights Backed by Unanimous U.S. Supreme Court

[cheers][rockon]

What a weak limb **** answer.

The Massachusetts court said the Second Amendment protections did not apply to stun guns because, among other reasons, they were “thoroughly modern” inventions that were not in common use at the time the Second Amendment was enacted in 1789.
Click to expand...
 
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.

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. “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.

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 self-defense.

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.
Click to expand...

Wow. Just...wow. That's great stuff right there.
 
IANAL, but the breakdown of the 15th page seems to be as follows:
1. MA SJC: Stun guns are not protected under 2A because they were not in common use in, say, 1791. SCOTUS: Inconsistent with Heller.
2. MA SJC: Stun guns are not protected under 2A because they are "unusual" since they did not exist in, say, 1791--equating "unusual" with "in common use." SCOTUS: Inconsistent with Heller.
3. MA SJC: Stun guns are not protected under 2A because they are not readily adaptable to military use. SCOTUS: Inconsistent with Heller.
 
DispositionMatrix said:
IANAL, but the breakdown of the 15th page seems to be as follows:
1. MA SJC: Stun guns are not protected under 2A because they were not in common use in, say, 1791. SCOTUS: Inconsistent with Heller.
2. MA SJC: Stun guns are not protected under 2A because they are "unusual" since they did not exist in, say, 1791--equating "unusual" with "in common use." SCOTUS: Inconsistent with Heller.
3. MA SJC: Stun guns are not protected under 2A because they are not readily adaptable to military use. SCOTUS: Inconsistent with Heller.
Click to expand...

Exactly! Thus, reaffirming their 2A stance even more. MASJC, go lick your salted wounds from this beating because it will only expose your injustice should another like ruling come up again.
 
Koolmoose said:
The last paragraph is great! A total legal slapdown of these Commiewealth's approach to self defense. Great decision. I wonder how this will enhance carry rights?
Click to expand...

The answer to this question, and all similar questions regarding other laws like the AWB, is that it will do nothing, at least not directly.

Like I said earlier, this case lays some great groundwork, but there is still a lot more work to do, and a lot more cases to file in order to claw back our rights.

http://comm2a.org/donate
 
VetteGirlMA said:
Wow, amazing job Comm2A. You guys deserve more than a pat on the back for this one!
Click to expand...

We already have a Caetano thread where I addressed this. Comm2A's involvement was limited to our amicus filings. I'd like to think they were influential, but we'll never know. Caetano's public defender deserves the lion share of the credit here. He's to be admired for his unwavering principles and willingness to go the distance for his client. Caetano's conviction was place 'on file', meaning it didn't have any long-term repercussions for her. Her lawyer could easily have called that a good outcome and walked away. Most defense lawyers - private and public defenders alike would have done just that.
 
Knuckle Dragger said:
We already have a Caetano thread where I addressed this. Comm2A's involvement was limited to our amicus filings. I'd like to think they were influential, but we'll never know. Caetano's public defender deserves the lion share of the credit here. He's to be admired for his unwavering principles and willingness to go the distance for his client. Caetano's conviction was place 'on file', meaning it didn't have any long-term repercussions for her. Her lawyer could easily have called that a good outcome and walked away. Most defense lawyers - private and public defenders alike would have done just that.
Click to expand...


Direct link to KDs longer response in the other thread:

http://www.northeastshooters.com/vb...e-at-the-SJC?p=4950052&viewfull=1#post4950052
 
Can someone troll the antis in Lexington, Lincoln, Longmeadow, etc. trying to get political glory from Town Meeting Resolutions with this?
 
Buggin said:
LOL.
The comment section is going full retard on MSN. I needed a good laugh.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/su...tts-ban-on-stun-guns/ar-BBqJeBV?ocid=hmlogout
Click to expand...

[laugh]

25341206774_9afcf28aef_b.jpg
 
I am in fear of this decision. It was unanimous. That scares me. The reason it scares me is now scotus gave people an alternative to traditional firearms. I fear they may use that to ban the traditional firearms saying that we are still allowing you your right to keep and bear arms to protect yourselves just with a less lethal weapon....so I am not optimistic about this "win".
 
robjax said:
I am in fear of this decision. It was unanimous. That scares me. The reason it scares me is now scotus gave people an alternative to traditional firearms. I fear they may use that to ban the traditional firearms saying that we are still allowing you your right to keep and bear arms to protect yourselves just with a less lethal weapon....so I am not optimistic about this "win".
Click to expand...

I don't fear this decision. This is more of a "you can also use a stun gun if you prefer" kind of decision. Guns are in common use and have been since gunpowder was invented. I think there is more to this decision, though. This decision can be quoted in cases where people are trying to overturn stun gun bans.
 
The decision would be very difficult to interpret as "stun guns ok, firearms not ok". It reinforces the idea that 2A is not limited to arms available in 1789.

I think it's incredible the decision was unanimous. But maybe not so surprising considering how case law built up around free speech.
 

Similar threads

Article: Nevada AG: Bloomberg-Backed Background Checks Would Not Have Prevented Las V
Replies
2
Views
515
Massbirdhunter
M
Article: Trump Bypasses Congress to Open Up World Markets to U.S. Gun Makers
Replies
10
Views
961
Crotchrocket
Crotchrocket
Article: Veterans Day 2017
Replies
5
Views
531
Len-2A Training
Len-2A Training
Article: 2nd Amendment Foundation Issues Travel Advisory: Your Gun Rights Are No Good in California
Replies
24
Views
2K
Len-2A Training
Len-2A Training
Article: 7 Mistakes Coyote Hunters Make
Replies
1
Views
463
Kevin_NH
Kevin_NH
Back
Top Bottom