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

[VetteGirlMA]

Sorry to keep asking so many questions, but I really want to understand how defending one's rights actually works. I am wondering if it's possible that there is a justice who doesn't want to take the case and is essentially grinding down the opposition by continually delaying until in this case the other party gives up and says they can no longer afford to defend themselves agains this case?

I think this is actually important because it cuts to the heart of something very important and it gives me pause for thought. What if in the future other technologies exist which have the capability of displacing firearms as weapons. I know it sounds corny right now, but I am thinking lasers, phasers, whatever it doesn't matter right now. Could a rejection of this case set a precedent in the future that basically says that the second amendment only applies to firearms and not newer things? Essentially throwing the 2nd under the proverbial bus, whereas the 1st still evolves with time so that "the press" doesn't mean just printing presses but radio, TV, the internet, etc. It would be unfortunate if that turned out to be the case.

 

[jar]

Because the SJC's Caetano decision flew in the face of Heller, some folks really hoped for a GVR here. I think that's unlikely.

Most GVR's seem to be situations when the Supreme Court has decided something relevant in the interim. That was the case with Loadholt. McDonald came out just before the Loadholt petition was filed.

Nothing re Caetano in today's orders, so we won't hear anything until 2/22.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Most GVR's seem to be situations when the Supreme Court has decided something relevant in the interim. That was the case with Loadholt. McDonald came out just before the Loadholt petition was filed.

Nothing re Caetano in today's orders, so we won't hear anything until 2/22.

The court often issues miscellaneous orders between conference dates. There were several last week. I'm hoping that happens here. If this was simple a case of a denial that's just waiting for a dissent, I think they've had more then enough time to pen the dissent. Me thinks (and hopes) that there's more going on here.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Sorry to keep asking so many questions, but I really want to understand how defending one's rights actually works. I am wondering if it's possible that there is a justice who doesn't want to take the case and is essentially grinding down the opposition by continually delaying until in this case the other party gives up and says they can no longer afford to defend themselves agains this case?

I think this is actually important because it cuts to the heart of something very important and it gives me pause for thought. What if in the future other technologies exist which have the capability of displacing firearms as weapons. I know it sounds corny right now, but I am thinking lasers, phasers, whatever it doesn't matter right now. Could a rejection of this case set a precedent in the future that basically says that the second amendment only applies to firearms and not newer things? Essentially throwing the 2nd under the proverbial bus, whereas the 1st still evolves with time so that "the press" doesn't mean just printing presses but radio, TV, the internet, etc. It would be unfortunate if that turned out to be the case.

Please keep asking questions. That's part of the point of what Comm2A wants to do. We want people to have a better understanding of their 2A and other rights.

Granting certiorari requires four justices to agree, so one justice can't really sink a case unilaterally. We don't know what happens in conference because on the justices attend and they have a very formal process for discussing cases. Cases get relisted when the justices aren't ready to make a decision. Here one of the delays happened becuase the requested the record from Massachusetts. That means that at least one justice was interested in possibly granting cert. Sometimes cases are relisted just because they don't have time to discuss it. I think they tend to deal first with the cases they don't want to take. Then there are the GVRs and per curium decision. A case can get 'relisted' because the cert denial is pending and one or more justices want to publish a dissent of that decision. This happened during the current term in two Second Amendment cases - Jackson and Friedman. I'm not sure that's happening here because there's been plenty of time to write that dissent.

So the net-net of this is who know?

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Relisted for February 19th.

 

[bigblue]

Is there another case that they may be waiting for? Factors external to this case?

 

[terraformer]

Factors external to this case?

An election coming up....

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Relisted again for March 4th. This has got to be a record:

Oct 27 2015 Reply of petitioner Jaime Caetano filed.
Oct 29 2015 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 13, 2015.
Nov 16 2015 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 24, 2015.
Nov 30 2015 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 4, 2015.
Dec 7 2015 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 11, 2015.
Dec 8 2015 Record Requested .
Dec 14 2015 Record received from the Supreme Judicial Court, Commonwealth of Massachusetts (1 envelope).
Dec 28 2015 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 8, 2016.
Jan 11 2016 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 15, 2016.
Jan 19 2016 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 22, 2016.
Feb 8 2016 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of February 19, 2016.
Feb 29 2016 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 4, 2016.

 

[jar]

I think the record is much higher. I remember something about a prisoner petition that kept getting relisted until something related was decided or something like that. That said, it's the most I've seen in a 2A case for sure.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Relisted again for Friday.

Mar 14 2016 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 18, 2016.

 

[Goliathan]

Wow

 

[VetteGirlMA]

Must be the ghost of Scalia keeping it alive.

 

[bigblue]

Can we bug the chambers or hack the email to find out wtf is going on? /s

At this point I assume that we just don't know if this is good or bad?

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Aaaaand we have a Winner!!!!

http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/032116zor_h3ci.pdf

Start at page 15. GVR with a per curium decision ripping apart the SJC's reasoning in the case. Alito and Thomas issue a concurring opion just to remove all doubt.

This is huge, it's really huge.

 

[swatgig]

I'm speechless

 

[bigblue]

Chills just went down my spine. WOW, I feel like I should go play the lottery.

"Although the Supreme Judicial Court professed to applyHeller, each step of its analysis defied Heller’s reasoning."

"we held that “the Second Amendment extends,prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearablearms, even those that were not in existence at the time ofthe founding.”"

 

[PreliatorX]

Wow - just further goes to prove how important D.C. vs. Heller is

 

[bigblue]

I just want to throw this one in there lest we forget:

"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."

 

[soam]

What is a "per curiam" decision? Does it basically mean the entire court concurred and so there is no dissenting opinion?

This is AMAZING!

 

[jtnf]

Goosebumps... I'm glad my monthly donation, however humble, is going toward successes like this.
Alito quoting "A Revolution in Arms" and "Firarms: An Illustrated History" pleases me more than it should, but still.

 

[Chevy 2 65]

What is a "per curiam" decision? Does it basically mean the entire court concurred and so there is no dissenting opinion?

This is AMAZING!

by decision of a judge, or of a court in unanimous agreement.

 

[rep308]

and the Globe weighs in:

Justices order new look at Massachusetts stun gun law

http://www.boston.com/news/local/ma...PBhCtarvasVM/story.html?p1=feature_stack_2_hp

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/20...-gun-ruling/RtA9pHtavuYhzXw9KPotCM/story.html

 

[soam]

Oh man, the more I read, the more excited I get.

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 emphatically
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.”"

Right up there with "The defendants’ reading of Heller requires a considerable analytical strain."

 

[soam]

Electronic
stun guns are no more exempt from the Second Amendment’s
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.

Yessssssss.

 

[jasons]

Oh man, the more I read, the more excited I get.



Right up there with "The defendants’ reading of Heller requires a considerable analytical strain."

I'm happy that they called that out. And a bit more eloquent than my response.

 

[bigblue]

SCOTUS just unanimously opened an immense door to modern and future weapon systems for use as self defense. This strikes down so many anti arguments in one fell swoop that it is hard to wrap my head around.

"PER CURIAM.
The Court has 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,”"

 

[modernhamlet]

SCOTUS just unanimously opened an immense door to modern and future weapon systems for use as self defense. This strikes down so many anti arguments in one fell swoop that it is hard to wrap my head around.

Any lawyers care to comment on the potential non-stun gun ramifications of this decision down the road?

This is crazy. Only the moonbats at the SJC could get Ginsberg and Sotomayor to agree with Alito and Thomas on a GUN case!

 

[jtnf]

SCOTUS just unanimously opened an immense door to modern and future weapon systems for use as self defense. This strikes down so many anti arguments in one fell swoop that it is hard to wrap my head around.

This!

Reading Alito, I may have to wait an hour or so to get up from my desk... Does anyone know if I can have saltpeter delivered?

 

[kalash]

So no more tax stamps or green cards? It says "bearable arms"...

 

[Len-2A Training]

I just got back in my office, so I printed but haven't read the decision yet.

Based on posts here . . .

Chills just went down my spine. WOW, I feel like I should go play the lottery.

"Although the Supreme Judicial Court professed to applyHeller, each step of its analysis defied Heller’s reasoning."

"we held that “the Second Amendment extends,prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearablearms, even those that were not in existence at the time ofthe founding.”"

Does this mean (hopefully) that the AWB in MA got thrown under the bus too? Or does Comm2A have to present another case to "define" what the quote above says in a language that the a-holes in the AG's office could understand??

I just want to throw this one in there lest we forget:

"If the fundamental right of self-defense does not protectCaetano, then the safety of all Americans is left to themercy of state authorities who may be more concernedabout disarming the people than about keeping them safe."

Wow! If that isn't a slap across the face of the AG, EOPS, MCOPA and the DAs, nothing is!!!

SCOTUS just unanimously opened an immense door to modern and future weapon systems for use as self defense. This strikes down so many anti arguments in one fell swoop that it is hard to wrap my head around.

Just what I'm thinking, so my question above!


To Comm2A - very glad to have been one of the early supporters. I talk it up at every class that I give. Keep up the awesome work guys!!!!