Comm2A has filed an amicus in a stun gun possession criminal case at the SJC

terraformer

NES Member
Rating - 100%
32   0   0
Joined
May 17, 2008
Messages
16,938
Likes
2,695
The SJC proving they don't care about their reputation.

http://www.mass.gov/courts/docs/sjc/reporter-of-decisions/new-opinions/11718.pdf

MA SJC holds that a stun gun "is not the type of weapon eligible for 2A protection". Despite being briefed by Comm2A AND THE state to the contrary on this matter, the SJC is claiming that "dangerous and unusual" is the test. And the coup de grace is that the stun gun is too new, and therefore not around since the founding… Also, that Miller v. US (1939) protects only military arms…

But wait, there's more! "[Stun Guns] are ineffective for…hunting and shooting sports." and "The question remains whether the total ban on stun guns has a rational basis."
 

Rob Boudrie

NES Member
Rating - 100%
6   0   0
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
42,990
Likes
24,676
There is a curious tidbit in this decision. The SJC cites, and accepts, common law that certain items are weapons per-se (putting the stun gun into this category), and certain other things (pocket knives, razors, cutting instruments, hammers) are not weapons per-se, and only become weapons when used a such.

This would make for a very interesting cite if someone is taken to trial for carry of a pocket knife on school grounds under circumstances that provide no hint said knife was being carried as a weapon rather than a tool.

But, I would expect the SJC to ignore its own precedent given the marsupial nature of the bench.
 
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Aug 2, 2008
Messages
5,239
Likes
741
Location
Middletown, RI

Rob Boudrie

NES Member
Rating - 100%
6   0   0
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
42,990
Likes
24,676
"Too new", hmm, so I guess the 1st amendment doesn't apply to the internet either.
A more relevant refutation is that Heller/McDonald did not make any distinction that modern center fire cartridge arms were not protected due to newness.
 

terraformer

NES Member
Rating - 100%
32   0   0
Joined
May 17, 2008
Messages
16,938
Likes
2,695
"Too new", hmm, so I guess the 1st amendment doesn't apply to the internet either.

Also this is contrary to the recent CT case in which knives were considered "arms" and this protected under the 2nd amendment:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...nd-batons-also-protected-by-second-amendment/

The actual decision: http://jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/CR315/315CR113.pdf

And it's contrary to a Washington state case, a NM case... A few states have held knives protected. And MN even held stun guns protected.
 
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Aug 2, 2008
Messages
5,239
Likes
741
Location
Middletown, RI
And it's contrary to a Washington state case, a NM case... A few states have held knives protected. And MN even held stun guns protected.

Forgive my ignorance, but when you have different state opinions, what are the options to sort through them the justice system to agree on a standard, Supreme Court?
 

VetteGirlMA

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Feb 3, 2015
Messages
6,830
Likes
15,181
Location
western mass
You know as a woman, and thankfully never a victim of domestic violence, I find the whole logic of self defense completely weird. It seems like life deals us only 2 options, overwhelming force or be a victim. I don't see the problem with someone wanting to protect themselves with a non-lethal weapon if they do not want to keep a hand gun or go through the licensing process. I wonder what would have happened if she had used pepper spray without a license? I wonder what victim groups think her options should have been? Should she have gone to the local hardware store and bought a nice claw hammer and carried it in her purse in case her scumbag boyfriend showed up unannounced? I just don't like the way that as a society we are increasing leaving more victims in this world. If her boyfriend killed her no one would be talking about someone else's rights.

What I find crazy is the mass court actually had the audacity to say "we need to consider what weapons would have been considered as right to bear arms" at the actual time of the ratification of the constitution. That's just insane thinking.
 

Darksideblues42

NES Life Member
NES Member
Rating - 100%
15   0   0
Joined
Dec 20, 2013
Messages
3,015
Likes
2,960
Location
Hudson, MA
As I said on the Facebook post, If Stun Guns are "Dangerous and Unusual" then I expect the court to order their immediate removal from all Police Departments.

Also, in all seriousness, how would the process start to get a bill introduced that states that all Police Departments and other LEOs are subject to the same restrictions with regards to firearms and any other weapons which are restricted from the general public, or conversely any weapon or other item which is presumably lawful for LEOs to possess is also lawful for a LTC holder to own.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Feb 18, 2007
Messages
2,374
Likes
266
Location
Summerville, SC
You know as a woman, and thankfully never a victim of domestic violence, I find the whole logic of self defense completely weird. It seems like life deals us only 2 options, overwhelming force or be a victim. I don't see the problem with someone wanting to protect themselves with a non-lethal weapon if they do not want to keep a hand gun or go through the licensing process. I wonder what would have happened if she had used pepper spray without a license? I wonder what victim groups think her options should have been? Should she have gone to the local hardware store and bought a nice claw hammer and carried it in her purse in case her scumbag boyfriend showed up unannounced? I just don't like the way that as a society we are increasing leaving more victims in this world. If her boyfriend killed her no one would be talking about someone else's rights.

What I find crazy is the mass court actually had the audacity to say "we need to consider what weapons would have been considered as right to bear arms" at the actual time of the ratification of the constitution. That's just insane thinking.



It is an unbelievable ruling. How would this sound? "we need to consider what media would have been considered as a right to free speech at the actual time of the ratification of the constitution."
 

VetteGirlMA

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Feb 3, 2015
Messages
6,830
Likes
15,181
Location
western mass
[/B]

It is an unbelievable ruling. How would this sound? "we need to consider what media would have been considered as a right to free speech at the actual time of the ratification of the constitution."

By this logic, if someone figures out a way to send a projectile downrange that doesn't involve gun powder (like a handgun version of a rail gun) then it wouldn't be covered in the second amendment "right to keep and bear arms". If it caused great bodily harm and was used by the military then would such a theoretical version be legal?

This is why I hate politics, and I mean both sides, left and right. Either side is more than eager to twist up our constitution and rip it apart piece by piece until there's nothing left. Then when someone ask "rights?". "What rights? You have no rights. I don't see a constitution do you?".
 

bigblue

NES Member
Rating - 100%
37   0   0
Joined
Feb 20, 2013
Messages
14,841
Likes
4,203
So the RKBA doesn't apply to lasers? Star Wars and Star Trek are lies? WHAT IS THIS WORLD COMING TO???
 
Rating - 100%
4   0   0
Joined
Jul 16, 2009
Messages
2,756
Likes
584
Maybe I've been living under a rock, but this is the first time I've seen the "rifle, hatchet, sword and knife or pike" interpretation of the Second Amendment endorsed by a court since Heller.

I've not seen Miller read this way before, either.
 
Rating - 100%
26   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2008
Messages
8,283
Likes
5,857
Location
My forest stronghold
If the Commonwealth waives the right to respond, does Caetano automatically win?

They already waived their right and the court asked for a response anyway. The state WILL respond now. That means that the court might be interested in picking up this appeal. If the Supreme Court grants certiorari, the state will have to defend it's position or most likely lose. But that would come later.
 

jar

Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Joined
Apr 13, 2007
Messages
6,370
Likes
699
Location
Needham, MA
If the Commonwealth waives the right to respond, does Caetano automatically win?
Government agencies almost always waive their right to respond. They get so many long shot petitions that it would be a big resource drain to respond to all of them.

If none of the justices are interested in the case, that's the end of it. If at least one justice wants to know more, the state has to respond.

Sent from my LGLS991 using Tapatalk
 
Rating - 100%
26   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2008
Messages
8,283
Likes
5,857
Location
My forest stronghold
Comm2A has filed a cert amicus brief in this case, urging the US Supreme Court to grant certiorari review.

If you have the opportunity, please congratulate the attorney formerly know around these parts as 'Scrivener' on his admission to the Supreme Court bar.

Huh? This is a SCOTUS petition is it not?
It is now. It was originally at the SJC.
 
Last edited:
Rating - 100%
26   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2008
Messages
8,283
Likes
5,857
Location
My forest stronghold
The Commonwealth's reply is due today. We'll post it if we're able to find a copy.

It should be interesting. The SJC really went out on a limb in this case and the AG's office will be responsible for defending the court's reasoning. I have a feeling that if the AG knew she'd have to address this with the US Supreme Court she would have wanted a little different decision from the SJC.
 
Top Bottom