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

terraformer · Nov 18, 2014

Comm2A has filed an amicus in a stun gun possession criminal case at the SJC. For more read http://www.comm2a.org/index.php/55-projects/215-caetano
While domestic violence groups piled on in the Holden case, here is a true victim who defended herself. Wonder if they will support her case...

jtnf · Nov 18, 2014

I'm a pull up a dram of my favorite Irish and read this one.

Knuckle Dragger · Nov 18, 2014

terraformer said:
Comm2A has filed an amicus in a stun gun possession criminal case at the SJC. For more read http://www.comm2a.org/index.php/55-projects/215-caetano
While domestic violence groups piled on in the Holden case, here is a true victim who defended herself. Wonder if they will support her case...

terraformer · Mar 2, 2015

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 · Mar 2, 2015

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.

RImike · Mar 2, 2015

"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

Rob Boudrie · Mar 2, 2015

RImike said:
"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 · Mar 2, 2015

RImike said:
"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.

RImike · Mar 2, 2015

terraformer said:
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?

terraformer · Mar 2, 2015

RImike said:
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?

Yes, SCOTUS.

fshalor · Mar 2, 2015

Next stop!

VetteGirlMA · Mar 2, 2015

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 · Mar 2, 2015

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.

Riverside · Mar 3, 2015

VetteGirlMA said:
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."

terraformer · Mar 3, 2015

I got this from Caetano's attorney.
http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/article/20150302/News/150309328

VetteGirlMA · Mar 3, 2015

Riverside said:
[/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 · Mar 3, 2015

So the RKBA doesn't apply to lasers? Star Wars and Star Trek are lies? WHAT IS THIS WORLD COMING TO???

TheRoland · Mar 3, 2015

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.

swatgig · Mar 11, 2015

Oops. Wrong thread

Knuckle Dragger · Jul 14, 2015

Caetano has petitioned SCOTUS:
Caetano v. Massachusetts

The Commonwealth has (tried) to waive their right to respond, but the justices want to hear the State's side of it anyway.

June4th · Jul 14, 2015

If the Commonwealth waives the right to respond, does Caetano automatically win?

Knuckle Dragger · Jul 14, 2015

June4th said:
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 · Jul 15, 2015

June4th said:
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

Knuckle Dragger · Jul 16, 2015

Caetano petition for certiorari.

standfast86 · Jul 16, 2015

5 justices appointed by Patrick. You can't be surprised by anything they do.

bigblue · Jul 16, 2015

standfast86 said:
5 justices appointed by Patrick. You can't be surprised by anything they do.

Huh? This is a SCOTUS petition is it not?

doxdsgn · Aug 12, 2015

Discussion of Amicus brief filed in support of SCOTUS cert petition by Eugene Volokh -- https://goo.gl/4sLry3

Knuckle Dragger · Oct 1, 2015

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.

bigblue said:
Huh? This is a SCOTUS petition is it not?

It is now. It was originally at the SJC.

Knuckle Dragger · Oct 13, 2015

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.

92G · Oct 13, 2015

Thx for update and your expertise.

hopefully the AG drafts something of a legal faceplant

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

Similar threads